Yesterday's Election Results

Mostly uninteresting run-of-the-mill candidates who will make no difference to anyone won their primaries, but not entirely. Let's start with some good news in North Carolina. Durham County has just over 310,000 people, one of North Carolina's most populous. Last night the county elected the first African-American in its history, Clarence Birkhead, who beat the racist incumbent , Mike Andrews. And he beat him in a landslide-- 69-31%. Birkhead vowed to not cooperate with ICE and to get guns off the streets. There were no statewide races. There were two Republican primaries which saw far right lunatics challenging more mainstream conservatives. In the 3rd district Walter Jones, Congress' most independent-minded Republican, fended off two opponents, Phil Law and Scott Dacey.

• Walter Jones- 20,862 (43.0%)
• Phil Law- 14,266 (29.4%)
• Scott Dacey- 13,380 (27.6%)

The other contest was in the 9th district, from south Charlotte, along the southern border of the state up into Fayetteville. This was another 3-way contest but this time the extremist defeated the incumbent.

• Mark Harris- 17,223 (48.5%)
• Robert Pittenger- 16,409 (46.2%)
• Clarence Goins- 1,862 (5.2%)

The DCCC has a worthless right-wing Blue Dog, Dan McCready, who won his primary against a low-profile Berniecrat, Christian Cano. As of the April 18 FEC reporting deadline, McCready had raised the most money of anyone from either party-- $1,905,269. He also has a $1,220,648 warchest now to face Harris, who has just $70,804 left. Interestingly, McCready's 37,823 votes were more than Pittenger, Harris and Goins combined!

Sadly Berniecrat Jenny Marshall, the only North Carolina candidate endorsed by Blue America lost out to a garden variety Democrat DD Adams 15,428 (54.4%) to 12,919 (45.6%). DD spent $127,795 to Jenny's $105,874. In Indiana the one Blue America candidate in that state also suffered a defeat. That was the 9th district, where a run-of-the-mill Democrat from Inside-the-Beltway beat Dan Canon 66.4% to 30.7%, having outraised him $585,706 to $433,401.

The big race in Indiana, though, was the Republican Senate primary. Two congressmen, both right-wing nuts, Todd Rokita, the more right-wing of the two, and Luke Messer, gave up their seats to run for the nomination. They both lost out to someone even more extreme-- a wealthy Trumpist businessman Mike Braun.

• Mike Braun- 207,977 (41.2%)
• Todd Rokita- 151,306 (30.0%)
• Luke Messer- 145,853 (28.9%)

Mike Pence's older brother, Greg, won the nomination in a 5-way race in a landslide (65.3%). There were no other surprises on either side of the aisle.

West Virginia was far more interesting. In the first Congressional District, the northern third of the state, 3 Democrats lined up to run against Republican incumbent David McKinley and progressive Kendra Fershee won.

• Kendra Fershee- 23,030 (47.3%)
• Ralph Baxter- 18,542 (38.1%)
• Tom Payne- 7,131 (14.6%)

And in the 3rd district, the southern third of the state, state Senator Richard Ojeda, had a huge victory, not just beating beating his 3 Democratic opponents combined, but beating the 4 top-running Republicans combined as well! Ojeda was the guy who supported Bernie in the 2016 primary and then switched to Trump in the general. Now he feels Trump let his voters down.

• Richard Ojeda- 29,837 (52.0%)
• Shirley Love- 14,251 (24.9%)
• Paul Davis- 9,063 (15.8%)
• Janice Hagerman- 4,176 (7.3%)

The biggest news in West Virginia though was how badly Don Blankenship wound up doing after surging all week. It was probably the anti-Blankenship tweet from Trump Tuesday morning that did him him. Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, the McConnell-preferred candidate who came in first.

• Patrick Morrisey- 47,571 (34.9%)
• Evan Jenkins- 38,888 (29.3%)
• Don Blankenship- 27,153 (19.9%)

It doesn't auger well for November that despite a surprisingly strong primary from Paula Jean Swearengin, who took 30.3% of the Democratic vote, the incumbent, Joe Manchin took 111,589 votes basically the same number of votes as Morrisey, Jenkins and Blankenship did together (111,612)! And that's in a state where Trumpanzee beat Hillary 489,371 (68.5%) to 188,794 (26.4%)!

That leaves Ohio, whose Democratic Party passed away, unnoticed many years ago. There were no interesting results on the federal level or in any statewide races, except for a decision to stop partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts. The other interesting race was for a state legislative seat. Remember Rachel Crooks? She was one of the women Trump molested. No one ran against her in the primary so she will be in the November general election.

In the gubernatorial race, Richard Cordray beat Dennis Kucinich 423,264 (62.3%) to 155,694 (22.9%). On the Republican side Mike DeWine beat Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor 494,766 (59.8%) to 332,273 (40.2%). And the Republican who will face Sherrod Brown in November will he multimillionaire Jim Renacci, who beat Mike Gibbons 360,474 (47.4%) to 241,109 (31.7%). There was not a single congressional race worth noting-- and there isn't likely to be in November either.

Today's Two Most Important Primaries? Districts Trump Won In North Carolina And Indiana

It's primary day in West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina, all states Trump won in 2016, but all staes with pockets of resistance and all states with lots and lots of buyers' remorse. There should be plenty of interesting results up and down the ballots in November when Democrats go up against Republicans. But today is the day when each party picks which candidates. There are especially bloody Senate GOP primaries in West Virginia and Indiana. But the most important primaries for Blue America today are congressional races in North Carolina's 5th district to pick a nominee to oppose Virginia Foxx and in Indiana's 9th district to pick a nominee to oppose Trey Hollingsworth. Neither is a "normal" place for an important race.

NC-05 has a PVI of R+ 10 and Trump won the district 57.4% to 39.8%. And IN-09's PVI is worse-- R+13, with a Trump victory of 61.1% to 34.2%. Yet two of the most promising candidates Blue America has endorsed this cycle are running for those two seats. The DCCC has backed neither, nor have the Blue Dogs, New Dems nor any of the crooked Inside the Beltway groups that endorse and validate candidates in America. Jenny Marshall and Dan Canon have been on their own and today they have no one to count on but their own grassroots efforts.

Dan tackled the question of why primaries matter.

If you’ve noticed how our elected officials are mostly members of the 1%, then you’ve noticed that they are-- de facto-- not representative of the other 99% of people they are meant to serve. It’s hardly surprising when they vote for measures that favor themselves and their friends and hurt people in need. They don’t understand what most people are facing, so their “solutions”-- if they offer any at all-- are tragically out of touch, and wholly inadequate to address the myriad, complex ways everyday people are struggling.

Low voter turnout in primaries has a lot to do with this. When we don’t get to know candidates and don’t support candidates who are, in a word, us, we allow the person with the most money-- and the wealthiest friends-- to be the loudest and most persuasive voice. In order to take back our government and elect people who will in fact serve us-- all of us-- we must seek out and support candidates who are truly representative of the people they would serve.

I was raised by a single, working mom, dropped out of high school, earned my GED, and became the first person in my family to graduate college. I’m not the model of a politician that we’ve come to expect (and largely dislike) in the United States. I’ve lived paycheck to paycheck. I've gone without health insurance. I have student loan debt. I've been divorced and remarried.

From representing people here for years - and experiencing the problems of the working poor in my own life-- I've gained an intimate knowledge of the real problems we face every day. I’ve learned to listen, and I've learned that real solutions come not from Washington D.C., but from working directly with people who are experiencing real problems. I have a lifetime of personal and professional experience doing just that-- and getting real results.

My first order of business will be to establish a substantial constituent services program right here in IN-09. People here do not want platitudes and promises; they want to see you getting elbow-deep in the community and taking real action. I plan to run services out of those offices-- enough that no one has to drive a half-day to reach one - that are responsive to everyday constituent needs, and also a hub for directing people to other valuable resources in their communities. People need to know that the federal government is doing something for them, and what better way to show that than to... do things for them? Not just by voting for legislation, but on a day-to-day, personal basis. This is has been sorely lacking in IN-09 for a long time, and is something I believe will lead to this no longer being a "swing district" in the future.

Jenny Marshall came to our attention because she was a successful Bernie organizer in a state where Bernie's message hadn't penetrated yet. But Bernie did significantly better in the counties she was organizing in than in the rest of the state. We noticed right from the start that Jenny is a kind of Every Woman, a school teacher trying to make her community a better place for everyone-- and in a district where Virginia Foxx has all but ignored the 99% in favor of her own wealthy campaign contributors.

"I became a teacher," Jenny told us yesterday in her last minute message, "to stand up for those kids who needed a little more help because they didn't fit the typical model of student. I advocated for their learning and their rights to be successful against a system that wasn't built for them. I got used to being the voice in the room that demanded we do better for our students. As my level of advocacy spilled outside of my classroom, I saw bigger obstacles that needed to be addressed. The push for charter schools and voucher was draining money from our already strapped public school system.  My already struggling students were being left out in the cold. I began making trips to the state house to talk to the powers that be about the legislation they were trying to pass.  I talked to everyone who would listen and dogged everyone who avoided me. It didn't matter what party, if the representative was attacking public education I fought back. I didn't take this on alone. I created a group that grew to over 9,000 strong of both parents and educators who also took on the General Assembly. We used our collective voice to demand our representatives protect education and return education back into the hand of the professionals rather than the bureaucrats. We were able to mitigate some of the more draconian measures they were trying to push. At every turn I stood up and demanded that we do right by our communities. That is why I decided to run for Congress. We need strong leaders who are not afraid to say the truth even if it is unpopular. We need people who remember what it is like to struggle to make ends meet just like the majority of Americans. We need people who don't just look past people's troubles, but who actively seek to help those in need. We need people like me who are committed to strengthening communities, empowering people and building a better future for all of us."

It's not to late to make a difference for these two candidates who will-- unlike most candidates for Congress-- actually make a difference. If you live in their districts, you can vote today. If you have friends or family in their districts, you can call and try to persuade them to get out and vote-- for Dan Canon in Indiana and for Jenny Marshall in North Carolina. America is depending on candidates like Jenny and Dan to remake Congress and to protect the country until 2021 when Trump finally leaves the White House.

Right-Wing Snowflakes

Laura and Milo

Ever hear of Milo Yiannopoulos? Don't worry, no one else has either... unless they watch Fox News commentators as a lifestyle. Last week Talia Lavin wrote a piece about Milo for the Village Voice (I've written about him too so I won't remark on what a waste of time it is.) The adventures of Milo-ism, she pointed out, include how he finds it "impossible... to go out for lunch in most major cities," which, she continued "speaks to an intellectual barrenness at the core of Trump-era conservatism. Having found themselves in political power, but nonetheless without complete cultural dominance, these conservatives must manufacture a sense of powerlessness."

Milo Yiannopoulos would like you to know that he is “Dangerous”-- that was the title of his abortive nonfiction debut. Milo Yiannopoulos is selling T-shirts that say, “Everyone who hates me is ugly,” and, “Guantanamo Bay Waterboard Instructor.” A Milo Yiannopoulos fan once shot a protestor at one of his speaking engagements in the stomach, causing a critical injury. Milo Yiannopoulos would like you to be very indignant that he was recently heckled at a Manhattan bar.

I'll bet even fewer people have ever heard of Kevin Williamson, although maybe they know another Kevin Williamson from elementary school. This one helps highlight "the hollow core of Trump-era conservatism" Talia is portraying. Early in April "Williamson lost a columnist gig at the Atlantic after less than two weeks on the job, when certain of his past inflammatory comments resurfaced. He’s managed to parlay this tribulation into thousands of published words about his own silencing. Thus far, by my calculation, his columns this week alone make up a substantial portion of the word count of the Book of Job. Right wing publicists Ross Douthat, Conor Friedersdorf, Erick Erickson, Noah Rothman, et al share "an insistent refrain: this is, if not authoritarianism, then its prelude; it is 'chilling'; it is a flexing of the muscles of a fledgling despotism; it is a Soviet-style censorship regime." Don't be sorry you've never heard of Williamson or his tempest in a teapot.

You could be forgiven, amid all this furor, for forgetting that Williamson was fired for stating-- publicly, repeatedly, and emphatically-- that women who have abortions should be punished by execution. That is, women who have had abortions-- fully one-quarter of American women-- are a criminal class, and some portion of them, after being convicted, should be publicly hung by the neck until dead.

There are, of course, a multiplicity of ironies here-- that a man so blithely willing to strip women of their rights is so avid in defense of his own; that the inventors of the terms snowflake and triggered overheat so easily at a professional slight; etc.-- but at its heart, what arises when one surveys a media landscape pitted with Williamson hot takes is an emptiness at the heart of conservative rhetoric, and an attendant need to create victimization where none, in fact, exists.

In the absence of material oppression of any kind, one wonders what motivates conservatives to cant toward martyrdom-- to seek, perpetually, a marginalization that cannot be measured. Recent research suggests that the Trump-era right suffers from “status anxiety”: to wit, a fear not of losing their ability to speak, but rather that their speech will become part of a chorus of equals. In expressing a groundless fear of being silenced, they reveal their true fear-- that of no longer being in a position to dominate the national conversation.

To an extent I empathize: It is difficult to maintain a sense of utter righteousness, difficult to feel the great maw of the white page, without a real claim to struggle. There are those who say that creative generation only comes through struggle; that forward momentum is possible only when obstacles arise to be smashed; that only a rough road can lengthen one’s stride, and straighten one’s back, and lead one forward to brighter lands. So it is not without some sympathy that I look to the nation’s conservatives who, finding themselves in possession of all three branches of government, and a plurality of state governments too, find themselves so bereft of struggle that they must invent it. What I cannot forgive is the laziness of the central metaphors, which return again and again to the well of twentieth-century authoritarianism, without ever pausing to consider how transparently ridiculous these metaphors become.

Thus we find Laura Ingraham called a Twitter boycott of her prime-time cable news show "Stalinist." One need not be a student of Russian history to recognize that Stalin's primary methods of punishment were not bitchy tweets, and the Soviet Union did not, historically speaking, have much of an advertising industry to boycott in the first place. Stalin tended to line his opponents up and shoot them. He tended to exile them to Siberia, or confiscate their grain, under the guise of “dekulakization,” until they starved to death. Laura Ingraham lives in what the Washington Post described as a “gated Northern Virginia mansion.” But it is entirely possible that she avoids eating grain (too many carbs).

There have been so many column inches in the New York Times and the Washington Post excoriating college students for protesting speakers that one might justifiably think this is the most pressing problem facing the United States educational system. (Never mind that many of these speakers were invited precisely to attract such a response, and the concomitant editorials, an ouroborous of specious victimization. And please, ignore the teachers’ strikes erupting in multiple states, and the fact that many public school students cannot even afford pencils.)

Talia reminds her gentle readers that there is no "lacuna of genuine problems to address in the United States of 2018. We are a country of patriarchal domination, of appalling racial injustice, of rising seas and falling wages. The problem with the Williamsons (and newspaper conservative columnists) of the world is that they have willingly chosen to turn a blind eye to what exists. Faced with the proverbial widow and orphan, conservative ideology posits stripping them of food aid. Faced with injustice in the courts, the conservative instinct is to embrace a status quo that perpetuates it. In an era in which conservatives find themselves winning-- with officials like Scott Pruitt and Betsy DeVos stripping this country of onerous regulations that do things like protect the air, or transgender students-- I am almost disappointed to find these would-be heralds unable to trumpet their success. It turns out that the rhetoric of celebration, of triumph, is too one-note for these wordsmiths. In service of obscuring the oppression they ignore, they must create one of their own.

And this is mirrored in right-wing members of Congress as well, of course. Katie Porter, who's running for the Orange County seat occupied by garden variety Republican Mimi Walters told us that "Rep. Walters is spending her millions of corporate PAC money dollars to convince her constituents that she is standing up for women in DC. Rep. Walters may claim to be standing up for women, but in her 20+ years in elected office, Mimi Walters has repeatedly stood with Paul Ryan and Donald Trump in their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and ban a woman's right to choose."

Lillian Salerno has her runoff on May 22 before she'll have to face GOP robot Pete Sessions in Dallas. "And deep in the heart of Texas is a worst-case offender in Pete Sessions, operating with a seemingly mindless loyalty to party over constituents in a state that many argue is a non-voting blue state that presents as red when it's represented in DC. Arguably one of their most powerful representatives doesn't even reside in the state, only coming in and out to chastise its citizens for not knowing how to listen as he rubber stamps on behalf of special interests that prop up the systems of oppression that the state can't seem to maneuver its way out of with these cronies like these at the helm."

Paul Clements is the progressive opposition to Fred Upton in southwest Michigan this cycle. "The fundamental political issue for America," he offered, "is increasing economic inequality-- most of the benefits of our economic growth going to the wealthy, due to a corrupt political system creating a rigged economy. The second issue is we are moving in the wrong direction on rights-- to live without hunger, for fair pay, for women to control their bodies, to equal treatment under the law (not policemen shooting you) … voting rights, equality for LGBTQ persons, and immigrant rights. The third issue is care for the environment, particularly major action on climate change, but also against despoliation for profit, and so all can enjoy nature. While Trump avidly promotes backsliding, the standard conservative response, which Fred Upton exemplifies, is in public to narrow all issues to minor steps and bland sentiments, and then to vote to enable Trump, corporate donors, and more backsliding. As long as Republicans can divert attention from the big questions they can win. Let’s not let that happen."

Jenny Marshall is taking on Trump rubber stamp Virginia Foxx in northwest North Carolina. "Foxx," she said, "is the epitome of right wing conservatism. Her world view is so narrow and selfish that I am truly shocked that she gets re-elected over and over again. She has voted against every pro-environmental bill that has come up, vowed to abolish the Department of Education and wants to get rid of the free lunch program yet she claims her values are American values. I disagree. To truly live up to American values we must ensure that everyone has the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This means building equity into a system that lacks it, empowering communities that have been silenced and investing in our future now.

Tom Guild is running for the Oklahoma City centered 5th congressional district. He told us that "Steve Russell received word of the first two females qualifying as Army Rangers with a call for an investigation into whether the test requirements had been watered down to unfairly help the women pass the required tests to become Rangers. He remained silent when Donald Trump equated demonstrators in Charlottesville who protested the Nazis and White Supremacists and their taunts of 'no Jew will take my place' accompanied by many ugly virulent racists acts and rhetoric, with the Nazis and Klan members. We heard only the sound of crickets from Russell when Mr. Trump said there were “good people” in the group protesting racism and those promoting racism in the Nazi and KKK contingents in Virginia. He supports and votes for budget cuts for the SNAP program that feeds millions of children and low income single parents. His campaign scoops up hundreds of thousands of dollars in corporate, special interest, and PAC contributions. His only relevant audience are those with God’s unlisted phone number who can give big bucks to his campaign. He is in the pocket of fossil fuels companies who pollute our air and water, and do permanent continuous damage to our planet. He supports oil company puppet Scott Pruitt who has the ethics of a snake and never misses an opportunity to visit great damage on our planet. He follows a policy of benign neglect regarding public education, enabling Betsy DeVos to further her quest to make education available only to those born with a platinum spoon in their mouths. Clearly as Mark Twain quipped long ago, “No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” Certainly Twain hit the mark, particularly if Russell is a member of the legislature. The top .01% is coddled and catered to by Russell. His cut, cut, cut…no matter what philosophy regarding programs that help working people, the middle class, and those who need a hand up, is designed to favor the overlords at every juncture. Despite his claims of charitable Christianity, he missed the part of the Bible where Jesus said, as you do unto the least of these, you do unto me. His actions and rhetoric are tragic for the people of Oklahoma and our beloved America."

Kara Eastman is the progressive Democrat running for Congress in Omaha for the seat conservative Don Bacon is sitting in. "The current representative for the Nebraska Second," she told us with specificity, "has voted 97.1%  of the time with Trump. As a member of the climate caucus, he has said he does not believe that climate change is caused by humans. He is in favor of taking away healthcare from his constituents. He also supports big government regulations for women’s reproductive health. It is time for a leader in NE-02 who will stand up for the residents in the district. We need someone who has seen the positive impact that environmental protections have on children here. We deserve to have leaders who protect women, children and working families. We need someone who is listening to residents in the district and fighting for them."

Lisa Brown is the progressive Democrat running in eastern Washington in the district occupied by 4th highest-ranking Republican in the House, a Ryan rubber stamp. "She told its this morning that "so-called 'fiscal conservatives,' like Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, vote for a 1.5 trillion dollar tax plan for the top 1% , then brazenly call for balanced budget amendments and cuts to food assistance and the social safety net programs. She lauds 'work requirements' for food stamps though 3 counties in her district have double digit rates of unemployment."

Will The Country Be Cleaner If We Elect Progressive Democrats This Year? (Not A Trick Question)

A week from tomorrow 2 crucial congressional primaries will be playing out-- one on Indiana's 9th district and one in North Carolina's 5th district. The DCCC isn't exactly crazy about either of these stalwart progressives and each one will have to face a multimillionaire far right odious crackpot-- Dan Canon taking on Trey Hollingsworth and Jenny Marshall taking on Virginia Foxx.

As of the April 18th FEC reporting deadline Dan had raised $433,401, compared to Hollingsworth's $887,779, and Jenny had raised $125,476 compared to Foxx's $1,482,801. Each also has a garden variety Democrat to face on May 8 (primary day). Both Dan and Jenny (whose newest video is up top) can use some help with their field operations. Field will determine the outcome of each primary. If you'd like to chop in to either campaign-- or both-- you can do it by clicking on the Blue America ActBlue congressional thermometer on the right. Both candidates have a lot in common policy-wise and certainly protection of the environment is one of them. Dan has been very clear that protecting the environment is one of his top priorities. He promised to "demand comprehensive environmental protections, including but not limited to: legislative strengthening of the EPA-- increased enforcement powers to deal with Flint-type crises, to ensure breathable air, drinkable water, and clean soil for all; support for the Keep it in the Ground Act of 2017 (H.R. 2242); measures to address, halt, and reverse global climate change by researching the viability of responsible geoengineering and other technological innovations; facilitation of both agency and private enforcement of the root causes of climate change (e.g., deforestation and irresponsible energy consumption); protect and strengthen the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Antiquities Act, and the Endangered Species Act; support and/or introduce legislation designed to reduce carbon pollution by at least 28% by 2025 and 80% by 2050; support permanently extending the wind production tax credit (PTC) and the solar investment tax credit (ITC); support and/or introduce legislation designed to facilitate a transition to 100% clean energy by 2050; ending subsidies to the fossil fuel industry."

Similarly Jenny makes it clear that "We only have one earth and we must take care of it. This means investing in clean renewable energy sources, increasing sustainable building and clean air, soil and water protections" and makes that point that she will push for 

• ban on fracking and eliminating the EPA fracking loophole for oil and gas companies.
• reinstate the superfund tax structure so that the cleanup of such sites does not burden the citizens, but the industry who created it.
• the passing of a renewable electricity standard (RES) setting binding targets for renewable energy in the near-- and long-term to diversify the U.S. electricity generation mix, save consumers money, and reduce pollution.

And both Dan and Jenny are very concerned by how Scott Pruitt is handling the EPA. Pruitt's corruption issues are bad enough. His policy problems are even worse. And now he's further alienated and demoralized his own staff.

Several current and former EPA officials and other people close to the agency said Pruitt did himself no favors with his congressional testimony Thursday, in which he blamed his aides for installing a $43,000 privacy booth in his office and approving more than $100,000 in first-class flights that he took last year. Pruitt also denied knowing key details about raises that his top staff received last year. And he declined to defend his former policy chief against Democrats' accusations that she had failed to show up for work for three months, even though she and Pruitt had been photographed attending the same meeting during the period in question.

...A current EPA official said Friday that employees are veering between "despair" and "embarrassment," and Pruitt's televised performance did not help.

"I will tell you, it did not go unnoticed from people who watched the hearing that he did not take responsibility on the policy pieces” of the testimony, the official said. "It was not lost on us on the stuff we know about that he used very careful language, he was parsing his words, that some might say he did not speak the whole truth."

One former EPA official said even political aides are “sick of Pruitt constantly putting himself first,” and “putting himself before the president’s agenda.”

“He’s rarely been interested in selling regulatory reform as improving Americans’ lives, and is far more interested in saving his political career,” the former official said.

But Trump has shown no signs of abandoning his EPA chief, who has won the strong backing of conservative groups with his efforts to erase Obama-era environmental regulations. So far, that has outweighed the anger of White House staff members and exasperation of key Republican lawmakers at Pruitt's series of controversies over luxe travel, extensive security, a below-market D.C. condo rental from a lobbyist and history of questionable real estate deals in his native Oklahoma.

...Departed EPA aides who have said Pruitt didn't tolerate internal criticism of his spending and secrecy say current staffers still fear they’ll be similarly swept up in the scandals-- but won't be able to find jobs if they quit now and gain a reputation for disloyalty.

“They’re trying to do the best they can in a toxic environment,” one former staffer said. “You cannot express any idea that might be misconstrued as a political attack on Pruitt or any policy issues, so people just do what they’re told. They’re professional. ... They don’t want to get caught in an undertow.”

Another former EPA official has been getting phone calls from staffers who are frustrated by the controversies but keeping their heads down.

“Everyone in the building wants to come out and say something … but as soon as they say something, they’re out of a job,” that person said.

...“Administrator Pruitt speaks for a certain aspect of the Trump administration conservative movement,” the appointee said.

Support For Job Guarantee Is Growing Rapidly-- Will It Be A Campaign Issue?

A campaign manager I've worked with on a few campaigns in the past has been asking for for the last few days to consider endorsing the candidate he's working with this time. The candidate doesn't seem bad and it's a winnable race. There are 4 Democrats competing for the nomination and the DCCC isn't involved so they all seem somewhat progressive. His candidate doesn't seem financially competitive-- but when have we ever allowed that to determine supporting someone. The newly redrawn district has counties that went for Bernie and counties that backed Hillary. In the general, Trump won-- though not by double digits.

Before agreeing to speak with his candidate-- let's call him Candidate X-- I asked him a few questions... like which primary candidate is most progressive and if Candidate X supports Job Guarantee and College Debt Elimination. His response was that "It is close, but X is more progressive-- his priorities are good jobs, better public schools and quality and affordable health care for everyone-- it is still a Republican district and he will have to pick up Independents and Reasonable Republicans-- so kitchen table issues are the way to go on the surface. Below that-- he is very strongly against gun violence and pro-choice. He put out a statement against Trump's Transgender Ban in the military and is strongly for LGBTQIA+ rights. He has signed the no money from Fossil Fuels Pledge (all four candidates have)-- but X will be signing the End Citizens United No Corporate Money pledge in the next couple of days-- no other candidate has signed it... He supports plan for a job guarantee for people that want a job-- although it is new concept to him and we spoke about it."

Not very convincing. Remember, what Blue America is looking for is courageous principled candidates-- like Kaniela Ing, Jenny Marshall, Alan Grayson and Dan Canon who are going to go to Congress and not worry about voting with conservatives in order to get reelected. Another campaign manager told me last week that his candidate will do it "the West Virginia way, like Joe Manchin does." Good luck with that. It's not what we're looking for-- not even close.

So, he didn't answer the question about College Debt Elimination and didn't have anything much to say about Job Guarantee. So what will he be like in Congress? A scardy cat? Who thinks voting for equal right for gays and willing to vote pro-Choice defines a progressive? Doesn't sound like the kind of champion we're looking for this late in the cycle. But I'll keep an open mind. And send him the Marie Solis report in Newsweek from yesterday: Can A Federal Jobs Guarantee Help Democrats Defeat Trump In 2020? How about elect a Democratic House in 2018? Bernie is about to unveil plans "that would guarantee every American worker a minimum $15 an hour position complete with health care, a retirement plan and the same paid leave benefits granted to federal public-sector employees." Even less credible would-be presidential candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker are trying to jump on the bandwagon.

There’s already widespread support for a federal jobs guarantee program among voters across the country, and-- most notably-- across the political spectrum, according to Sean McElwee and his colleagues at Data for Progress, a progressive polling and analysis firm. In March, they found that a majority of voters in all 50 states supported a jobs guarantee, even in states that went overwhelmingly to Trump. The state that polled lowest was Utah, where a solid 57-percent majority still said they would favor the proposal.

When researchers at Civis Analytics, another progressive data analytics firm, narrowed the data by voting pattern, they found that 56 percent of those who went from voting for former President Barack Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 supported a jobs guarantee, and 58 percent of non-voters looked favorably on the idea as well.

... “If we’re speaking strictly about winning campaigns, running on jobs is 100 percent a smart move, and it’s 100 percent what Democrats should be doing,” Sean McElwee, a researcher and co-founder at Data for Progress, told Newsweek. “Democrats can run on jobs without sacrificing other progressive causes.”

McElwee cautioned Democrats against getting too excited about the number of Obama-turned-Trump voters they can win over with the policy-- it’s still modest. But it’s enough to cut a path to victory in 2018, he says.

“If you can get back about one-third of Obama-Trump voters and energize non-voters, there you are,” he said. “You’ve got your House majority.”

Indeed, some who switched their votes from Barack Obama to Trump told Newsweek the idea seemed common-sense.

“If this could help the people get jobs, I support it,” said Eileen Sorokas, from Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, which went to Obama in 2012 but to Trump by 20 points four years later. “I know what it’s like not to have a job-- it’s kind of scary. If it works, I’m all for it.”

Before she retired, Sorokas, now 70, worked at a dress factory that shut down and went overseas in the mid-90s. Her husband Richard worked at Procter & Gamble for over three decades until he retired 17 years ago. He said a jobs guarantee interests him because he’d like to see fewer Americans rely on the country’s welfare system.

“I remember Trump wanted to get people off of welfare, and he said he was going to make jobs for people who want to work” he told Newsweek. “What stuck out for me was getting people off of welfare. I thought that was a great.”

Both Richard and Eileen-- who said they’d been lifelong Democrats-- said they’d consider voting for a member of their party again if they campaigned on a strong jobs platform, like the guaranteed jobs proposal.

But they’re not totally sold yet. After a beat, Richard posed what might just be a multi-billion dollar question: “Where do you get the money?”

Policy research institutes like the Center on Budget and Policy Proposals and the Center for American Progress have priced federal jobs guarantee plans similar to Booker’s and Sanders’s at $543 billion and $158 billion, respectively. The government could fund a jobs program by raising income tax on the rich-- a proposal that is controversial in some circles. But proponents of the policy in the Senate see it as a worthwhile expenditure.

...House candidates are already testing the waters for the 2020 presidential hopefuls. Dan Canon, who’s running in the Democratic primary in Indiana’s 9th District-- which went to Trump by double digits in 2016-- says he’s spoken to hundreds of voters about his proposal for a jobs guarantee, and not one of them has voiced any opposition to the idea.

“A jobs guarantee is good for the economy, it’s good for unemployment and it’s good for infrastructure,” Canon said.

In Canon’s district, home to some of the most rural parts of Indiana, he says voters have two top concerns: jobs and infrastructure. As Canon sees it, fixing the first problem with a jobs guarantee can solve the other. If people need jobs, they can take government-sponsored work fixing the district’s roads, public transit system, energy grids and broadband access, Canon says. The House candidate's proposal, and others like it, harken back to the Works Progress Administration implemented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a program that gave some 8.5 million unemployed Americans jobs building up the country's infrastructure during the Great Depression.

“I have not found a single person in Indiana that disagrees with this idea or thinks it’s a bad one,” Canon told Newsweek. “The only pushback I ever got when presenting people with a jobs guarantee is from political theorists who think the district just isn’t ready. But those tend to be D.C. think-tank types who don’t understand the people on the ground here in Indiana."

We asked some the other candidates Blue America has endorsed how they speak about Job Guarantee to the voters. Hawaii candidate Kaniela Ing told us that "America’s promise has always been clear-- work hard and your family will prosper. Today, too many hard-working Americans feel that our leaders have gone bad on that promise. I talk to folks who tell me everyday, they grind and sweat, but struggle to get by. Wages are stagnant, unemployment and underemployment are rising, the threats of automation and globalization are becoming real, all while costs are skyrocketing. But just take a walk outside and look around at all the work that needs to be done in America. There are bridges to be built, highways needing repair, kids to be taught, aging folks needing care, oceans to be cleaned, trees to be planted. But private markets fall short. For every job opening in America, four people are gunning for it. This pits worker against worker and creates a power imbalance between workers and their bosses. It’s too risky for a worker to stand up to wage theft, inhumane working conditions, or sexual harassment, when they know there’s nowhere else to go. Our elected representatives must stop pretending that everything is okay, and that the job market will some home fix itself. It’s time for real solutions that will actually help working families across America. It’s time for a new New deal. Since the start of my campaign, I’ve been leading with a universal job guarantee, and I ask other progressive candidates to join me. Let’s remind the establishment that the ability to work for a livable wage is a human right that should be afforded to all. In these uncertain times, progressives will lead with real solutions that offer hope to the many, and just the privileged few."

Ellen Lipton is the former state legislator and progressive Democrat running for the open seat in the suburbs north of Detroit. She's interested in Bernie's Jobs Guarantee ideas and told us that "the federal government has been at the mercy of corporate-controlled lobbyists for long enough. How long are we going to allow them to offer the same tired economic policy of tax cuts for the phantom 'job-creators?' How about trying something that actually has a track record of working-- direct federal investment in people rather than profits. A guaranteed jobs program would put people to work on everything from infrastructure to IT, renewable energy to healthcare and social work-- the possibilities are endless."

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, the Blue America-endorsed candidate running in the open Albuquerque district, is also a big fan of Job Guarantee. This is what she told us some time ago: "I believe that all human beings deserve to live in dignity, and that as part of that we build a government that ensures a well-paying job to each and every individual. Imagine if we guaranteed to all human beings a well-paying job with a livable wage that allows for healthcare, housing, transportation, food, and ultimately the dignity of work? What it would mean for our communities, poverty, racial and gender equality? Well, we've done parts of this before with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the New Deal era. Imagine a program that achieves delivering well-paying work to all individuals, all while overhauling our nation's infrastructure and educational systems. It has the potential to breakdown the entrenched racial and gender-based inequality that exists in our labor force, and enshrines the ideal that all Americans who want a good job will have one. It assures that the dignity of a well-paying job is not just for a plurality of Americans, but for all who seek it. In an increasingly evolving economy, it's important that our government think creatively about the future of our labor force, and ensure that people's needs are put first in the changing labor economy."

Like Dan Canon, Jenny Marshall's North Carolina primary is May 8 sees the idea of Job Guarantee as something relatively easy to explain to voters. (Maybe that's because she's a school teacher.) She's campaigning for the seat held by a multimillionaire, Virginia Foxx, who has never exhibited any interest whatsoever in giving a hand to working families. "People," Jenny told us," want to work and give back to their communities in real tangible ways. They also want to provide a decent, secure life for their family. Think of all the New Deal programs such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Works Progress Administration that helped put people to work and which began to pull us out of the Great Depression in the 1930's. While those programs did not lift all out of abject poverty it did jump start our economy in a way that can still be witnessed today. Frankly, our infrastructure is long outdated and our national parks and memorials need tending to. Here in the 5th district we have national forest that needs trail cleanup, buildings that need to be repaired and programs that need to be staffed. We need to repair dams, bridges and other infrastructure projects. People need jobs and ones that pay a living wage. Why not offer work that would put an investment back into our communities?"

A NYT Lesson in Horrendous Economic Journalism-- Guest Post By Jonathan Tasini

On Monday, journalist and author Jonathan Tasini wrote a "Dear colleagues" letter about bias in mainstream journalism, especially in the coverage of economics. It impressed me so much that I asked him if I could publish it here at DWT. He graciously agreed.

Mainstream/traditional journalism is replete with examples of bias and utter cluelessness when it comes to economics. You can’t get a better example of that than the absolutely horrendous piece today in the New York Times entitled Public Servants Are Losing Their Foothold in the Middle Class-- which purports to explain why public workers can’t pay their bills. The piece is full of what I call “immaculate conception economics.” Or, in plain English, shit just happens, and when we can’t explain how it happens, we just fall back on blind theology. Or, as the immortal Warden Samuel Norton said: “Lord! It's a miracle! Man up and vanished like a fart in the wind!” To wit:

• The word “union” does not appear a single time in the article. Not to explain why public workers actually made a decent living-- it wasn’t thanks to the munificence of politicians, Republican or Democrat. It was because of union organizing. Nor to explain why, as politicians and right-wing billionaires have prosecuted a relentless war against public sector unions, wages have declined. This is especially glaring when the two “journalists” describe the wave of uprisings by teachers in “red” states-- teachers who belong to unions, unions that are coordinating the protests of their members.
• We read: “Many of the jobs created-- most in service industries-- lack stability and security. They pay little more than the minimum wage and lack predictable hours, insurance, sick days or parental leave. The result is that the foundation of the middle class continues to be gnawed even as help-wanted ads multiply.” Why do you think those jobs lack stability and security? It is because union density has declined dramatically in the past 30 years.
• This is telegraphed, by the way, early in the article: “But globalization and automation aren’t the only forces responsible for the loss of those reliable paychecks”. Ah, yes, those anodyne terms of “globalization” and “Automation”-- leaders and CEOs, looking to enrich themselves and enslave labor around the world, driving down wages and cutting benefits (think: the Waltons of Wal-Mart and Jeff Bezos), had nothing to do with that. It’s just the inexorable “globalization” and “automation.”
• Later: “Short of money, many states have also privatized services like managing public water systems, road repair, emergency services or prisons, transferring jobs from the public sector to private companies that have reduced salaries and benefits to increase their profits.” It’s a miracle! It has nothing to do with those jobs being transferred to NON-UNION companies who cut wages and benefits because there is no way for workers to collectively bargain.
• The article repeats the false pension “crisis” meme, describing“… generous pension and benefit commitments made in fatter years came due.” Pensions are DEFERRED COMPENSATION-- not simply some “generous” handout. I don’t even think the “journalists” are conscious that they are using the false pension “crisis” language that has been carefully inserted into the debate by people ideologically opposed to decent retirement standards. And you didn’t need Russian bots or Facebook to assist—this has been political rhetoric encouraged for many years by politicians spanning the political spectrum, funded by billionaires particularly the much-lauded late Pete Peterson. It’s a lie.
• About privatization. You would think that, in describing the privatization of work, the two “journalists” would consider inserting even a sentence or two to make the point that lots of data shows privatization is a failure, costs more to the public in actual dollars and results in poorer service. Not a word.

That is just a small sampling. This is terrible journalism. An embarrassment.



After speaking with Jonathan, I asked three of the most union-forward congressional candidates I know-- Randy Bryce (WI-01), Jared Golden (ME-02) and Jenny Marshall (NC-05)-- what they thought of his perspective. As you may have guessed, all three are as serious as Tasini about the role unions play. Bryce told me that "unions are the only thing keeping corporate greed’s boot from crushing our throats. Work sites that I have been on are safe thanks to the demands of unions. Those sites are safe whether one pays union dues or not. Don’t complain why we have what we do-- ask why you don’t have it."

And Golden's perspective is as Majority Whip of the Maine legislature, not from a construction site. He said he agrees wholeheartedly with Tasini. "I have proudly voted four years in a row in the Maine Legislature against the GOP’s so called 'Right to Work' proposals that aim to gut Maine’s remaining unions, including our public employee unions. For eight years now" he continued, "under the tea party Governor Paul LePage’s leadership the state has frozen pay raises and left department positions vacant, and made it a priority to go after public employment and unions, all while pursuing plans to privatize government services from bridges to prisons to health and human services. This country needs stronger unions in more sectors and in Congress I’ll do everything I can to strengthen the labor movement because like you rightly pointed out as unions have declined so have middle-class jobs, wages and benefits."

Golden picked up another union endorsement last week, IBEW 2327. They now join the ranks of IAM, IAFF, the Professional Fire Fighters of Maine, IAM Local S7, the Maine State Council of Machinists and the UAW BMDA Local 3999 that have all endorsed his candidacy.

And Jenny is a member of the Teachers union herself. Last night, she told us that "Unions are what built the middle class and created stable communities across this country. It was due to the strength of their numbers that they demanded and won fair wages and benefits for workers. Those union shops then pushed private sector employers to do the same. This was not lost on businesses and government leaders who tried to reduce the union’s power to negotiate salaries, benefits and working conditions. After years of systematic assault on their ability to organize, unionization is on the decline and we can see the effects in our own backyards. It’s a race to the bottom and unless we start protecting workers’ rights to unionize. I stand with my union brothers and sisters across this country in our fight for fair labor practices and just compensation."

The Government Has A Job To Do-- Creating Full Employment... And It's Been Failing At It

There have been rumors circulating for months that one of the planks of Bernie's 2020 platform will be Job Guarantee. This week the Levy Institute at Bard College published a paper that could well be the intellectual underpining of that plank, Public Service Employment-- A Path To Full Employment by distinguished economists L. Randall Wray, Stephanie A. Kelton, Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Scott Fullwiler, and Flavia Dantas. It's well worth reading the entire report (at the link above). This is the executive summary:

Despite headline-grabbing reports of a healthy US labor market, millions of Americans remain unemployed and underemployed. It is a problem that plagues our economy in good times and in bad-- there are never enough jobs available for all who want to work. The problem is most acute for women, youths, blacks, and Latinos, although research also finds a persistent lack of employment for large numbers of working-age men. This report asks a set of big questions: What if we sought to eliminate involuntary unemployment across all demographic groups and geographic regions, by directly creating jobs in the communities where they are needed through a federally funded Public Service Employment program? How could such a radical transformation of the labor market be implemented? What would it cost, and what would it mean for the US economy?

A number of important implications emerge from this analysis. Joblessness, defined as the inability to secure a job at a living wage ($15 per hour), can be eliminated in every corner of America for every eligible person who desires to work. With a standing job offer-- a “public option”-- available at all times, the US labor market would transition to a permanent state of true full employment. Millions of American families would be lifted out of poverty, and the economy would grow as the benefits of the program spill over into the private sector. Perhaps most astonishingly, this can all be done without the need to raise taxes and without creating an inflation problem.

We propose the creation of a Public Service Employment (PSE) program that would offer a job at a living wage to all who are ready and willing to work. This is a “job guarantee” program that provides employment to all who need work by drawing from the pool of the otherwise unemployed during recessions and shrinking as private sector employment recovers. Federally funded but with a decentralized administration, the PSE program would pay $15 per hour for both full- and part-time positions and offer benefits that include health insurance and childcare. In addition to guaranteeing access to work on projects that serve a public purpose, the PSE program establishes effective minimum standards for wages and benefits.

We have simulated the economic impact over a ten- year period of implementing the PSE program beginning in 2018Q1. Drawing from the unemployed, underemployed, and those who are out of the labor force, the program would attract roughly 15 million people into the PSE workforce, based on our higher- bound estimates of likely program participants. While the report also presents lower-bound estimates, the results highlighted here correspond to this higher- bound scenario:

•  Real, inflation-adjusted GDP (2017Q4 dollar values) would be boosted by $560 billion per year on average, once the PSE program is at full strength (from 2020 to 2027).

•  The economic stimulus generated by the PSE program would also increase private sector employment by up to an additional 4.2 million private sector jobs relative to the baseline, due to the “multiplier effects” of the program.

•  Even though it boosts GDP by over $500 billion per year, adds more than 19 million private and public service jobs, and raises wages nationwide above $15 per hour, the program’s impact on inflation is minor: the boost to inflation peaks at 0.74 percentage points higher than the baseline projection and then progressively falls to a negligible 0.09 percentage points higher than the baseline by the end of the simulation period.

•  The program’s net impact on the federal budget averages 1.53 percent of GDP in the first five years of the program (2018–22) and 1.13 percent of GDP in the last five years (2023–27). These net budgetary impacts could be significantly overestimated, since the simulation makes very cautious assumptions about offsetting reductions in Medicaid and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) expenditures that would result from higher employment and wages.
•  State-level government budgets are improved by a total of $53 billion per year by boosting employment and growth.

•  Based on the demographics of estimated PSE participants, the program would disproportionately benefit women and minorities.

•  One full-time worker in the PSE program could lift a family of up to five out of poverty. With one full-time and one part-time worker, a family of eight could rise above the poverty line.

•  In addition to these measured benefits, the PSE program would lower spending by all levels of government, as well as by businesses and households, on a range of costly problems created by unemployment. It is possible that the program would “pay for itself” in terms of savings due to reduced crime, improved health, greater social and economic stability, and larger reductions in Medicaid and EITC expenditures than those assumed in the simulations.

•  The projects undertaken in every community would provide visible benefits, meeting specific local needs through work that involves caring for people, strengthening communities, and protecting and renewing the environment. This report develops a blueprint for the design, jobs, and implementation of the PSE proposal for the United States.


Unemployment, hidden and official, with all of its attendant social harms, is a policy choice. The results in this report lend more weight to the argument that it is a policy choice we need no longer tolerate. True full employment is both achievable and sustainable.


Alan Grayson is running for Congress again. This is right up his alley. Yesterday he told us that "During the worst of the Great Recession, with unemployment in double digits, I pointed out that the Government could hire every single unemployed person, paying them all $15 per hour, and that would cost around half of the military budget. Today, it would cost barely a quarter of the military budget or, alternatively, right around the cost of the Trump tax cuts for the rich. And if we did, then America would no longer be a country of cheap labor and debt slavery."

Jenny Marshall is the progressive candidate running for the 5th district in North Carolina, currently held by Virginia Foxx-- a big waste of a seat. This morning, Jenny told us that "as she has "traveled around the district what I have found is that people want to work. They want a job that pays the bills. The jobs guarantee would provide work to those who need it in places and spaces where they could have a huge impact in empowering their community and providing much needed labor. I have been talking to people in the recent weeks about this proposal and people are excited about it. They start rattling off places that need help and things that need fixed. With a jobs guarantee, we could tackle those and so much more. A job gives a person autonomy, dignity and builds community. The jobs guarantee is a win-- win situation."

The NRCC Is Starting To Freak Out About Really Deep Red Districts

On Thursday evening the Houston Chronicle reported that when Blake Farenthold slithered out of Congress last week he did so without repaying the $84,000 he stole from the taxpayers to cover up the charges that he had sexually harassed a female staffer. He had promised he would repay the stolen funds-- and he's a multimillionaire. The GOP-led House Ethics Committee is demanding he pay back the money, as are Speaker Paul Ryan and NRCC chair Steve Stivers. His very gerrymandered district (TX-27) has a PVI of R+13 and gave Trump a 60.1% to 36.5% win over Hillary. But this is precisely the kind of district the NRCC is starting to worry about. Two Republican are locked in deadly runoff combat for the nomination, Bech Bruun and Michael Cloud. (Two Democrats, Roy Barrera and Eric Holguin, are in their own primary runoff for the seat.) As of the February 14 FEC reporting deadline, neither Bruun nor Cloud was in good shape for what could turn into a competitive race. Bruun has $84,497 in his campaign account and Cloud has only $12,127. Holguin had only $2,413 and Barrera had nothing at all.

Yesterday Alex Isenstadt, reporting for Politico, noted that the NRCC is panicking over districts that should be gimmes for the party, not just TX-27, but districts all over the country that just a few months ago looked immune to the blue tsunami. Stivers no longer thinks there are safe seats anywhere and he's "pressing Republican lawmakers in conservative areas to get their sluggish campaigns in order." He's begging major donors, who have been largely ignoring the House and trying to save the Senate, "to open their wallets for incumbents in seats previously thought to be secure."

While most of the party’s efforts have been focused on defending swing districts, Republicans are increasingly turning their attention to more conservative areas, from suburban Phoenix to rural Virginia, fearful that they too could be casualties of a midterm bloodbath.

Party officials say they‘ve learned the lessons Democrats failed to heed during the 2010 House GOP takeover. That year, a number of Democratic-held seats once thought to be safe became endangered just before the election, giving the national party little time to mount a rescue campaign.

"In a year like this, every Republican is vulnerable. If you don't take your race seriously, you'll probably lose," said Robert Blizzard, a veteran Republican pollster who’s working on a number of congressional races. "The Democratic enthusiasm is no joke. They're coming to the polls in November no matter what. Don't run a strong campaign at your own potential peril."

...Stivers (R-OH) met one-on-one with all 43 House Republicans who were outraised by Democratic opponents during the fourth quarter of 2017.

At the committee’s Capitol Hill headquarters, staffers have begun referring to members like Illinois Rep. Randy Hultgren, Virginia Rep. Tom Garrett and North Carolina Rep. Ted Budd-- who also won reelection in 2016 by double digits-- as “the foundation.” In other words, the lawmakers whose fate will determine whether Republicans save their majority.

Over the past few weeks, the pro-House GOP Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC has conducted surveys in the districts of three conservative House Freedom Caucus members-- Garrett, Budd and Virginia Rep. Dave Brat.

It also polled the races of two North Carolina Republicans, Reps. Robert Pittenger and George Holding, both of whom won by double digits in 2016. Their House districts are among 50 the super PAC has surveyed.

Those familiar with the polling say none of the five members are in imminent danger of losing. Yet some are sounding the alarm.

On Monday, veteran GOP pollster John McLaughlin, who advised Trump’s 2016 campaign, delivered a presentation to Florida Republican legislators in which he warned that the party was failing to invigorate the president’s supporters. He said many Trump voters were likely sit out the midterms, a dynamic that could endanger lawmakers in conservative areas.

At one point, McLaughlin showed a slide highlighting the Republican drop-off in special elections since the start of the 2018 cycle and noting that Democrats had improved their performance by 14 percentage points on average.

“Republicans are losing elections because they don’t understand and are not appealing to Trump voters, and Trump voters are staying home because the Republican establishment has no clue how to get them out,” McLaughlin said in an interview.

Party officials are particularly concerned about members who’ve failed to fill their fundraising coffers. In North Carolina, Pittenger has been outraised by his Democratic opponent, Iraq War veteran Dan McCready. On Tuesday, McCarthy held an event for Pittenger in the state that raised over $160,000.

In Virginia, Garrett and Brat have posted subpar totals, raising concerns among party leaders, who are rushing to help them build their war chests. Next month, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise will headline a “Breakfast with Brat” event benefiting the conservative congressman.

“Unfortunately, in Garrett and Brat’s case, neither congressman has done what they need to do from a fundraising perspective,” said Chris LaCivita, a longtime Virginia-based Republican strategist. “From a fundraising standpoint they have made their races attractive to Democrats."

In some states, the GOP is racing to build political infrastructure for lawmakers who previously needed little help from the national party. Congressional Leadership Fund has opened a field office devoted to boosting Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the House GOP Conference chairwoman who’s won her past five reelection bids with at least 60 percent of the vote.

The RNC has established an elaborate field program in North Carolina, where Holden, Budd and Pittenger are running-- and where there are otherwise few voter turnout mechanisms in place. With North Carolina in a “blue moon” election cycle, meaning that there are no statewide races on the ballot other than Supreme Court contests, the committee has dispatched six full-time field staffers to the state.

...Some Republicans, however, contend that the biggest concern isn’t donors-- it’s unprepared lawmakers failing to realize the danger they face.

Congressional “majorities aren’t made by the races that are targeted the whole cycle. They are made by open seats and unprepared members in Republican-leaning seats where members are unprepared,” said Jeff Burton, a former top NRCC official.

“They will go home in August and finally realize what the environment looks like,“ he added, “and by that time, it’s almost too late.”

No one imagined Republicans in deep red districts like Virginia Foxx (NC-05), Trey Hollingsworth (IN-09), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), Peter Cook (CA-08), Devin Nunes (CA-22) and Brian Babin (TX-36) could be on slippery ice but all 6 and dozens of others in red, red districts are.

Jenny Marshall's primary in northwest North Carolina is less than a month away. And then comes the general election. She told us today that her right wing opponent "is in trouble. Recently Foxx spoke to Wilkes County Republicans about the challenge Democrats are putting up this election cycle. She said maintaining their majority 'won’t be easy because they [Democrats] are going all out against the president and against us.' She went on to say that, 'we know because of President Trump getting elected that miracles still happen,' and that Republicans 'literally are doing the Lord’s work.' I hate to break it to the Republicans, but we are not buying it. We want a representative that actually works for all of the people of this district to ensure that they are paid fairly for their work, that people have access to healthcare, and that students are receiving the high quality public education they deserve. Every day Rep. Foxx sits high up in Washington, pushing terrible policies and filling her coffers with PAC money, while we’re working hard on the ground-- making calls, recruiting volunteers, and actually talking to the people of the 5th District. The 5th is a lean red district, but we are working hard to turn it blue."

Dayna Steele is urging progressives outside of her district (TX-36) to adopt a red district. "So many of you are in districts that would elect a Democrat even if no one was running. Find the reddest district in your state or find the reddest district in the country or find the reddest district in Texas, like mine. Adopt a candidate in a red district and do everything you can for them like call banking and fundraising (which is virtual now). You can adopt me here.

Paul Ryan Runs Away

Because Blue America has spent years trying to defeat Paul Ryan, about a year ago we got two consecutive call, one from former Ryan opponent and one from state Senator Chis Larson, asking me to call a very politicized progressive union iron worker in Racine County and help persuade him to run against Ryan. The Wisconsin Working Families Party had already done the heavy lift and they just needed me to push Randy Bryce over the edge. It was a pleasure talking with him over the phone; he was a Bernie guy who had the right answer on every single question. In introduced him to two political operatives who could bring his vision to reality-- Bill Hyers, the guy who made that first video, and David Keith, the guy Randy hired as campaign manager. (Alan Grayson this morning: "David beats Goliath.")

Bryce made it clear he wasn't dependent on the DCCC, that he and his team were running an independent campaign without the establishment interference. And he caught on like wild fire while the DCCC sat around scratching its ass and wondering if they could bottle whatever Bryce was doing. They could ask Jared Golden, the whip of the Maine state legislature and a candidate for Congress very much like Bryce. "I think this confirms that when Democrats put forward strong working class candidates, like Randy Bryce and myself, who have served our country in the military and who have a record of fighting for workers and labor, GOP incumbents like Paul Ryan and Bruce Poliquin are in trouble and they know it."

Paul Ryan and Bruce Poliquin have been working together in the House since 2015, and in that time they've added trillions to our national debt, given mega tax cuts to the super rich donors who prop up their campaigns, and tried to take healthcare from millions of Americans. And they've had so much fun, doing it together...

Or take it from another veteran and working class candidate, DuWayne Gregory, executive of the Suffolk Count legislature, the progressive running for Peter King's seat. "Paul Ryan’s retirement is the biggest signal to date that the blue wave is coming. But it will take more to move more entrenched establishment type likes Peter King out of office. Rumors are he wants to 'pass on' the 2nd Congressional District seat to his daughter as some type heirloom. I’m working as hard as I can to make sure that plan doesn’t happen and this district has a representative interested in serving the people not his own personal interests."

Yeah, because-- as we've been predicting for 2 months-- Ryan pulled out of the race today. No one's going to get the pleasure of watching Bryce beat him on election night in November. Although everyone-- except maybe Beltway types-- knows Bryce already won-- scaring the 48 year old Ryan into a premature retirement. Moments after Ryan's announcement this morning that he's not seeking reelection Bryce's campaign released the following statement. 

Paul Ryan decided to quit today rather than face Randy Bryce and the voters. With nearly $5 million raised to date, a strong field program aided by organized labor, a broad coalition of support locally and nationally,  Randy Bryce is incredibly well positioned to be the next representative for the First District. Electorates far more conservative than Wisconsin's First have already elected Democrats in special elections in Wisconsin and across the country.

WI-01 is far less conservative than many districts that have already turned blue, in and outside of Wisconsin, this year. PA-18 went to Trump by nearly 20 points and it's rated by the Cook Political Report as an R+11 district. WI-01 is rated R+5 and Trump won the district by just 10 points. Senate District 10 in Wisconsin, which went to Trump by 17 points, also flipped blue in a special election in January of this year.

The Bryce campaign has organized a robust, grassroots campaign. Randy has raised $4.75 million to date, with 75 percent of those donations coming in small-dollar increments of $200 or less. That support allowed the campaign to begin airing TV ads in the district at the beginning of March, so voters are already becoming familiar with Randy's story.  The campaign is also building a strong grassroots field program. Over 140 county captains have already been trained to serve as volunteer leaders in their areas.

Even earlier this morning campaign manager David Keith sent out his own note:

After 20 years in Congress rewarding billionaires like Charles and David Koch, Paul Ryan took one look at Randy Bryce and this campaign and is throwing in the towel.

Think about that for a moment. The most powerful Republican in Congress is retiring because he's too scared of Randy Bryce and the hundreds of thousands of working people who have built this campaign.

When ordinary people work together, we can do the extraordinary.

Now it's on us to send a U.S. Army veteran, cancer survivor, and union ironworker with one heck of a mustache to fight for working people in D.C.

...[O]ne of the Republicans running in Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District is an actual neo-Nazi.

I'd like to say he's unelectable, but look at who is in the White House. So, we can't take anything for granted. There's still time for Paul Ryan to get one of his rich buddies to run. And don't forget, this district has more registered Republicans than Democrats.

We still need to build this campaign and be ready for whatever comes next.

The little campaign that could! They chased Paul Ryan right out of Congress. Soon he'll be bumping into Steny Hoyer on K Street. Yesterday Axios was one of the first to ring the bell: "One of Washington’s best-wired Republicans said: 'This is a Titanic, tectonic shift. … This is going to make every Republican donor believe the House can’t be held.' The announcement will help Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in his fundraising because 'the Senate becomes the last bastion,' the Republican said." Yeah, it will also help Democratic candidates all over the country. Keith Ellison a few hours ago: "Speaker of the House Paul Ryan announced today that he will not seek reelection this November. After leading the charge to pass the historically unpopular GOP Tax Scam, targeting Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security for huge cuts to pay for it, and enabling Donald Trump’s divisive agenda, he sees the writing on the wall. Americans are fed up, and even the GOP Speaker of the House recognizes that our momentum is real. This is the clearest sign yet that we’re on the right track to win majorities in Congress this November, and now we just need to keep the pressure on."

The Fallout Begins

Insiders expect a flood of mainstream congressional Republicans to run for the exits now. The first out after Ryan was Dennis Ross (FL-15), minutes after Ryan's announcement. His central Florida district runs from Brandon and the suburbs east of Tampa north through Lakeland up to Groveland and beyond past Florida's Turnpike. Obama lost the district both time, Trump won by 10 points and the PVI is R+6. There were half a dozen Democrats competing for the nomination, though none of them have raised the kind of money it would take to make the district competitive. Ross' excuse for backing out was "Eight years takes its toll on you. When you feel like a stranger in your hometown, it’s time to say, 'There’s got to be an exit strategy at some point.'" And here's Paul Ryan's worthless, embarrassing bullshit from this morning is in the video below.

One Republican congressman-- feeling the angst-- told right wing propagandist Erick Erickson at a Safeway-- on condition of anonymity-- that "it's like Forrest Gump won the presidency, but an evil, really fucking stupid Forrest Gump. He can't help himself. He's just a fucking idiot who thinks he's winning when people are bitching about him. He really does see the world as ratings and attention... But dammit he's taking us all down with him. We are well and truly fucked in November. Kevin [McCarthy] is already circling like a green fly circling shit trying to take Paul's [Ryan] job... [Lord's name in vain], at least I'll probably lose too and won't have to put up with that shit... Judiciary is stacked with a bunch of people who can win re-election so long as they don't piss off Trump voters in the primary. But if we get to summer and most of the primaries are over, they just might pull the trigger if the President fires Mueller. The shit will hit the fan if that happens and I'd vote to impeach him myself. Most of us would, I think. Hell, all the Democrats would and you only need a majority in the House. If we're going to lose because of him, we might as well impeach the motherfucker. Take him out with us and let Mike [Pence] take over. At least then we could sleep well at night."

Unfortunately, not all defective Republicans are retiring. McCarthy and Scalise are already battling over the speakership and, less blatantly, Mark Meadows is making a play for the neo-fascist vote in that battle. He most have been happy to hear that Virginia Foxx won't be retiring. We asked her progressive opponent, Jenny Marshall, if there's any chance Foxx would follow Ryan out the door. No good news on that front: "Virginia Foxx has stated recently that she has no intention of retiring from Congress even with vast majority of people in our district wishing she would. I have spoken with many Republicans who would like to see someone new take her seat. They, along with the Democrats and unaffiliated voters who do not subscribe to her narrow view of the world want a representative who actually represents them and their communities. Virginia Foxx is bought and paid for and we all know it. It's time for a change-- whether she thinks so or not."

 


UPDATE: Ryan's Legacy-- POS

This evening New Hampshire congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter tweeted the naked truth about Ryan and his cowardly decision to retire: "Good riddance to Paul Ryan, the most overrated fraud in American politics." Lawrence O'Donnell was as savage on his MSNBC show. Before either of them, though, Ronald Brownstein eviscerated what was left of Ryan's reputation, noting that The outgoing House speaker, more than any other lawmaker, paved the path for congressional Republicans’ subjugation to the president and that he personifies the Devil's Bargain the GOP struck with Trump.

Paul Ryan... will leave Washington carrying a more tarnished legacy-- as the most important enabler of Donald Trump.

No one in the GOP was better equipped, by position and disposition alike, to resist Trump’s racially infused, insular nationalism, or to define a more inclusive competing vision for the party. Instead, Ryan chose to tolerate both Trump’s personal excesses and his racially polarizing words and deeds as the price worth paying to advance Ryan’s own top priorities: cutting spending; regulations; and above all, taxes. The result was that Ryan, more than any other prominent Republican, personified the devil’s bargain the GOP has signed with Trump. And his departure crystallizes the difficult choices Republicans face as Trump redefines the party in his belligerent image.

...[A]fter Trump took office, Ryan blinked at confronting the president’s appeals to white racial resentments. Pressed for reaction to comments like Trump’s reported description of African nations as “shithole” countries, Ryan managed to mumble the bare minimum of plausible criticism: “The first thing that came to my mind was very unfortunate, unhelpful.” For most people genuinely distressed by Trump’s remarks, “unfortunate” and “unhelpful” were probably not the first words that came to mind; “racist” and “xenophobic” were.

Even more consequential was Ryan’s refusal to challenge Trump on behalf of the young undocumented immigrants included in former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Though the speaker repeatedly promised the “Dreamers” that Congress would protect them, he has allowed the legislation that would have preserved their legal status to wither, after Trump and House Republican hardliners insisted on linking it to poison-pill provisions that would slash legal immigration.

...The result of all this inaction has been the transformation of the GOP majorities into the see-no-evil Congress, with rank-and-file Republicans and their leaders repeating the same mantra: Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here... Ryan more than any other Republican paved the path for this subjugation to Trump-- if only because he provided the most viable rallying point for an alternative, optimistic, inclusive vision and yet chose to submit. He leaves the party lashed to a volatile, impulsive leader who is systematically stamping it as a vehicle for white racial resentment, even as the nation grows kaleidoscopically more diverse.

The former head of the NRCC, Tom Davis of Virginia, pointed out that "Ryan's exit is a destabilizing blow to Republicans’ 2018 plans on nearly every front" and that "I don’t know what he was thinking. I think this was a huge miscalculation. I think this is the captain abandoning the sinking ship."