Third Way Failed The Test-- Again... Third Way Always Fails The Test

I admit I hadn't heard about David Doel's show, the Rational National before. But here are two from consecutive days last week-- one up top and one at the bottom-- and he's talking about the same thing we were on those same days-- attacks on Bernie by the Wall Street Democrats, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. I went so far as to list-- in the Meet The Scumbags section of this post-- the members of the Third Way Board of Directors and their Wall Street origins. They're the ones running the Bernie smear campaign-- and he hasn't even declared he's running yet-- in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. As Bernie pointed out in his e-mail to supporters on Thursday, these crooked conservative banksters-- defenders of the status quo-- not only want to defeat him, "they want to make sure that the progressive agenda is not advanced by anyone... Our agenda terrifies the political and financial establishment of this country."

Ironically, the crooks at Third Way say that "Bernie failed the test" in 2016 and now they need to put someone up who can beat Trump. I say ironically because it was the Third Way candidate, Hillary Clinton, who ran and failed, not Bernie, who many people feel was cheated out of the nomination by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other party bosses who rigged the primary against him. One of the Third Way crooks told the media that "By far the most important question that Democrats should be asking is which candidate and which set of ideas has the best chance of beating Trump. The midterms proved conclusively that the Sanders ideas fail that test." That isn't what the midterms proved at all. Even relatively conservative Democrats were running on Bernie's ideas, especially Medicare for All, which is overwhelmingly supported by Democrats and independents and even by 52% of Republicans!

If the Third Way crooks, and their puppets among the Blue Dogs and New Dems, think the Democratic Party is going to embrace their candidate again-- this time either Bloomberg, Gillibrand, Biden or Beto-- they must be high. Let me recommend Nicole Goodkind's piece-- also from last week-- in Newsweek: Bernie Sanders Will Face Donald Trump in 2020 Election, Democrats Say. This one is about party pros, based on a survey The Hill conducted. They rank Bernie #1, followed by Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown and Deval Patrick (who isn't running and is barely known outside of Massachusetts).

“His people have never gone away,” Democratic strategist Brad Bannon told The Hill. “And he has a loyal core following out there that will be with him come hell or high water.” Sanders is the most popular politician in America, with an approval rating of 75 percent, according to a recent Harvard-Harris poll.

The dumbest comment of the pros came from Phil Singer, who runs a third rate p.r./lobbying firm, Marathon Strategies, and was Hillary's press secretary in her stupendously failed 2008 primary run against Obama. His company mostly does greasy corporate pr and his top clients are Delta, IBM, Barnes & Noble, Chuck Schumer, Tesla, Bloomberg's anti-gun PAC, a low-end sandwich chain and a charter school outfit. He says the Democrats have a "weak field"-- and in the stupidest possible analogy only an out-of-touch old white man would make: "You have a bunch of Celine Dions but there’s no Beatles."

Politics-- The Art Of The Possible? Please, Give Me A Break

-by Valley Girl

"Politics is the Art of the Possible."

Hearing that phrase always makes me grind my teeth. One person on a college email list I am on (all Democrats) likes to repeat this phrase. Sanctimonious Bullshit I say.

On his twitter stream, Howie posted a link to a Jacobin article, which I read with great interest. And having read that, I went off to Google and found an excellent, thoughtful article from 2010 about “the art of the possible.” I will use an edited version of this first here, because it sets the stage for the more recent Jacobin article. [my additions are bolded]

The problem with “the art of the possible.”

Whenever a commentator declares that "politics is the art of the possible," I'm on my guard. What I'm being told, I suspect, is to accept apparent present conditions as immutable facts of life, and to trim my goals accordingly. I'm being told to let injustices stand.

Like all banalities, the familiar dictum contains an obvious truth. To be politically effective, you have to be able to distinguish between your desires and realities on the ground, between aspirations and resources.

But like most banalities, it begs more questions than it answers. How is "the possible" defined? Where are its limits drawn? Who draws them? Theoretically, the possible is an elastic and speculative category. But the dictum draws no distinctions between the immediately unlikely and the ultimately impossible, takes no notice of the infinite and shifting gradations between them, and of the impact of human agency in shifting an outcome from one category to another.

What's usually meant when politics is pronounced the art of the possible is that politics is a calculation of the probable, an exercise in the pragmatic, the expedient or the opportune.

The adage implies forcefully that minimal improvements or lesser evils are the only realistic aim--and any demand for more is self-indulgence. It's an injunction not only to compromise, but to get your compromise in first. To placate hostile forces in advance, as Obama tried to do with health care reform.

Obama's election was in itself a vivid display of the eruption of the supposedly impossible into the realm of the ordinary. The slogan "Yes we can" evoked a defiance of assumed limitations. Now Obama's supporters are being lectured for expecting too much from the president, for not understanding that "politics is the art of the possible." Here, as in so many instances, the "possible" is a code word for what vested interests will permit.

...When people speak of politics as the art of the possible, they imply a world of unexamined assumptions about the limits of the possible-- a world that embodies only the limits of their own experience or imagination. In its unreflective way, the dictum treats the superficial conditions of the moment as unchangeable realities. In effect, it serves as a denial of possibility, a closing of the aperture into the future.

It also urges us not to feel the urgency of injustice. The dictum is cold comfort to the oppressed, the victims of poverty, discrimination and violence, who are asked to continue suffering while distant arbiters decide what is or is not "possible" in their case. It sacrifices the poor, the hungry, the desperate on the altar of a self-serving pragmatism.

Impatience, in fact, is a necessary political virtue. Without it, even the most gradual change is inconceivable. And a politician who is not impatient with injustice, with needless death and destruction, is worse than useless.

Those who dispute the dictum are accused of utopianism, which is condemned as an intellectual and emotional error--not just a mistake, but a danger. Of course utopias are no substitute for the practice of politics, and can serve as an evasion of present responsibilities. But a practical politics stripped of serious ideas about what would constitute a just human society is a greater and more common menace.

…Utopias provide a perspective from which the assumed limitations of the present can be examined, from which familiar social arrangements can be revealed as unjust, irrational or unnecessary. They are a means of expanding the borders of the possible.

You can't chart the surface of the earth or compute distances without a point of elevation--a mountaintop, a star or a satellite. You can't chart the possible in society without an angle of vision, a mental mountaintop that permits the widest sweep. The pundits championing the art of the possible are the flat-earthers of today, afraid to venture too far from shore lest they fall off the edge.

It's striking how often pundits of "the possible" rest their case on all kinds of gross improbabilities.

In insisting that there was no alternative to neoliberal economics, many assumed, in defiance of obvious objections, that speculation had no limits, that wealth-making could be severed from productive activity, that private interests would magically coagulate into public benefit, that industrial growth could be limitless on a planet with finite resources. Here, the art of the possible has been revealed as a dismal pseudo-science, its certainties built on foundations of sand.

It is very much the vice of the center-left. The right is bolder, more confident, more reckless and strongly driven by their own utopian visions (which would be dystopias for the rest of us). In contrast, liberals advise each other to trim their ambitions, to sacrifice their goals in order to remain politically viable.

In the wake of 9/11, liberals in the U.S. largely signed up to the Afghanistan invasion--because to fail to do so would place them outside an apparently immutable pro-war consensus. Those who kept their nerve and set about building an antiwar movement proved the more farsighted.

Of course, if your politics is about personal aggrandizement, then it will be "the art of the possible" in the narrowest sense. But for those who seek in politics a means of changing society for the better, it must be the art of redefining the possible. The art-science-craft of coaxing from the present, with its complex mix of possibilities and limitations, a just and sustainable human future.

Now back to the Jacobin article Howie posted on Twitter, The Midterms’ Winners, Losers, and Double-Losers. Keep in mind the first article above while reading below, because they mesh perfectly.

By running to the right, Democrats insist on losing twice: at the polls and in constructing an inspiring agenda. Bold left-wing politics are our only hope for long-term, substantive victory.

In the throes of an identity crisis and scrambling to recover ground lost in 2016, Democrats tried a wide array of tactics in this year’s midterm elections. Some tacked left, others tacked right. Both strategies yielded mixed results. But the major difference between the two approaches is that the Democrats who parroted conservative talking points ceded politically to the Right, even when they won their elections. Those who articulated a bold progressive political vision claimed a crucial victory for the Left, even when they appeared to go home empty-handed.

When Democrats compromise on left-wing values to win office, that’s a draw for the Left at best. This is because the task of the Left in the political sphere isn’t simply to prevent Republicans from gaining majorities-- it’s to defeat the right-wing agenda, in all its forms. If that’s your goal, incorporating conservative positions and rhetoric into your own campaign is an unsound strategy, destined to undermine you in the long run.

Not Whether, But How You Win

Consider the case of incumbent Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana. Donnelly tacked way right-- touting his collaboration with Trump and voicing support for the proposed border wall, promising to “cut regulations that cost jobs,” positioning himself as the more reasonable of two pro-life candidates, and warning that Medicare for All would pass “over my dead body.” He calls his brand of politics “Hoosier common-sense middle,” but the word he’s looking for is “conservative.” [editor: or opportunism and inauthenticity, long the mark of Donnelly's political career, both in the House and then the Senate.]

Donnelly lost. Even with an incumbent’s advantage and the ringing endorsement of Barack Obama [Proponent of the “The Art of the Possible,” “President Pre-compromise,” who visited Indiana for a last-minute rally with the senator, [Donnelly] was unseated by Republican challenger and Trump acolyte Mike Braun. Braun is an aggressively pro-corporate multi-millionaire businessman and free-market evangelist who exploited a man’s death against his widow’s wishes in a campaign ad designed to spread fear about undocumented immigrants.

[Bernie] Sanders did something even more important than defeating his opponent on the political stage: he gave millions of people permission to take their innate disgust with economic inequality and exploitation seriously as a political framework.

There are two main reasons to be leery of Donnelly’s approach. First, it doesn’t work.

When Democrats tack to the right-- often on economic issues, less often on social ones-- they justify it as a shrewd stratagem, even a prerequisite for victory. But the idea that Democrats stand a better chance at winning office if they posture as Republican-lite is baseless. Ordinary people, whose living standards are declining as their wages stagnate and their safety net disappears, are increasingly attracted to distinct and explicit political agendas and proposals for bold change.

Not even the very worst Democrap running for president

So when a Republican puts forth a brazen (if dystopian) vision of the future, and a Democrat responds by proposing a watered-down version of it, the Republican has the advantage. This is clearly what happened in Donnelly’s case. It’s also the reason that arch-centrist Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, and why Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in Indiana.

Second, politics isn’t just about whether a candidate wins. It’s also about how they win, and on whose terms.

Elections are a unique opportunity to speak to people on a mass scale about the principles and values that should order society. Political candidates have a chance to say whatever they want to thousands and sometimes millions of people at a time. The choices they make about how to wield that power shape the popular conception of what ideas are admissible, what policies are desirable, and what social transformations are achievable.

Political campaigns are always either expanding or constricting the imagination of the public. For a candidate whose sense of political purpose extends beyond selfish careerism-- someone who wants not simply to improve their personal station, but for their political ideas to become ascendant in the long-term-- a campaign is an opportunity to educate and inspire constituents with a positive, unambiguous plan for a better society.

When a Republican like Braun stokes the fires of xenophobia and racism, and a Democrat like Donnelly responds by reiterating his support for a border wall to keep immigrants out-- promising that he won’t let the “[menacing voiceover] radical left” abolish ICE and asserting that we must do “whatever’s necessary to protect our border”-- this entrenches rather than challenges the conservative worldview. It’s a political victory for the Right, no matter who wins office.

Similarly, when a Republican calls for “market-driven health care solutions” as part of a larger program to pad corporate pockets at the expense of working people’s health, and a Democrat responds by aiming his indignation at the segments of the Left seeking to attain universal public healthcare, the Democrat has thrown the match. He’s wasted his opportunity to lay the groundwork for long-term left-wing victory by proposing an alternative to the right-wing capitalist vision of a world where people are subordinate to profits.

Winning on those terms is far from guaranteed-- and it’s hardly a victory at all.

A Widening Split

Donnelly’s a somewhat extreme example, at least on social issues. Though many Democrats agree with him on the need to cater to large businesses and the impermissibility of Medicare for All, most are pro-choice and oppose Trump’s border wall. But Donnelly’s strategy is not as anomalous in the Democratic Party as you might think.

Barack Obama could have gone anywhere in the country in the days before the midterm elections. He chose three, and one of those was Indiana. There, he stumped for a man who decided to campaign against a racist capitalist by shadowboxing with imaginary “radical left” opponents. Obama threw his weight behind Donnelly-- who openly opposes amnesty for immigrants and refugees-- by saying, “We need leaders who will actually stand up for what is right.”

Politics isn’t just about whether a candidate wins. It’s also about how they win, and on whose terms.

Thus we saw how the Democratic Party establishment is fully on board with this strategy of Thus swapping political conviction for what they assumed would be partisan victory.

Mostly this manifests as a fetishization of compromise. The Democrats recovered a majority in the House yesterday. Instead of taking the occasion to claim a victory for the Left over the Right, Nancy Pelosi promised that Congress would now function as a “bipartisan marketplace of ideas.” Even in their wildest political fantasies, basking in the glow of victory, Democrats see themselves sharing governing power with Republicans rather than defeating Republicans’ ideas.

This obsession with combining left and right politics, instead of simply pushing against the Right from the left, is the same strategy that for more than thirty years has kept Democrats busy mastering the art of compromise while Republicans pursue their high-octane austerity, privatization, and reactionary social agenda without any pretense to bipartisanship. Not only is it pathetic to behold, but the payoff is supposed to be electoral victory. That victory has been elusive.

Meanwhile, concessionary centrism from the Left matched by zealous ambition from the Right have combined to produce a rightward drift in American policy, especially as pertains to corporate empowerment and evisceration of the public sector.

But there is a split widening within the Democratic Party, and not every candidate in the midterms struck a centrist pose. Quite a few Democrats tacked left instead, contra Obama and Pelosi.

National Nurses United found that in 52 percent of congressional races, Democratic candidates supported Medicare for All or single-payer health care. This surge in candidate support for Medicare for All is pretty astonishing considering that two years ago Hillary Clinton, then the face of the Democratic Party, assured the public that single-payer healthcare will “never, ever come to pass.”

Candidates have changed their tune because the national conversation has shifted dramatically-- and that’s happened because Bernie Sanders has a different conception of the political value of an electoral campaign than mainstream Democrats do.

In 2016, when he went head-to-head with Clinton in the Democratic Party primary, his goal was not to simply beat his opponent by whatever means necessary-- though, tellingly, he did come much closer to winning than anyone expected, given that party elites reviled and actively restrained him. Instead he acted like a candidate acts when they have a clear political vision, and their goal is to popularize that vision and inspire a new constituency that will fight for that vision for years to come.

To this end, Sanders put forward a bold platform that tested the limits of what Americans thought was possible, while remaining achievable on the condition that Americans could muster the political will. He unflinchingly campaigned on ideas that would transform working people’s lives but that few Democrats had the guts to publicly propose, including Medicare for All to tuition-free college and student-debt forgiveness.

Putting this platform before a mass audience not only established new norms of legitimacy in the political mainstream-- it also worked to rewrite the narrative about the balance of power in American society. Sanders’ platform told a story about America with a new protagonist, the non-affluent majority, and a new antagonist, the ruling-class minority that profits from everyone else’s hard work and desperation.

As a result, even though he lost the primary election, Sanders emerged over the next two years as the most well-liked politician in America. Popular support for Medicare for All shot up from 21 percent in 2014 to a whopping 70 percent this year. Popular support for tuition-free public university reached 60 percent, up from an idea so obscure that pollsters didn’t even inquire about it.

By treating his campaign as an opportunity to reset the terms of the debate and raise the expectations of the ordinary people who comprise the broad working class, Sanders did something even more important and long-lasting than defeating his opponent on the political stage: he gave millions of people permission to take their innate disgust with economic inequality and exploitation seriously as a political framework. A majority of Americans now want to eliminate the private insurance industry and replace it with a single public alternative, and more than half of Democratic congressional candidates ran on the issue this November.

Candidates who backed Medicare for All and other progressive policies sustained a combination of defeats and victories. But they had in common a willingness to walk through the door that Sanders opened and use their campaigns to raise ordinary people’s expectations for what a good society can look like.

In an era dominated by unhinged Republicans and equivocating Democrats, running a widely observed campaign aimed at generalizing progressive and democratic socialist principles is a victory for the Left, whether or not the candidate defeats their opponent. When the Left runs as the Right and it loses, as Donnelly did, that’s a double loss. When the Left runs as the Left and it wins, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Julia Salazar, and Franklin Bynum did this midterm season, that’s a double victory. And even when explicitly left-wing candidates don’t win office, their losses aren’t complete if they’ve dedicated their campaigns to articulating and popularizing progressive and democratic-socialist ideas on a mass scale. Let’s build more of those kinds of campaigns, instead of insisting on losing twice.

Kirsten Gillibrand, another would be Democratic presidential contender

Closing note: I (VG) graduated from college in 1969. It was a time of great social upheaval. I found an email I wrote to someone on the college list, back in Feb. 2013.

Our conversation happened to remind me of something I hadn't thought about in a while. I remember coming to this view back in college or thereabouts. Probably arose b/c of observations re: women's lib, and more general political protest that included violent actions (Weathermen, etc) and to a lesser extent very radical views from women's libbers. Even though what they did and said went beyond what I might have done myself, I was NOT willing to condemn them, privately, or especially in political conversations, of which there were many at that time. As best as I can recapture my thoughts, I felt that those on the extreme left were the ones driving political change in a positive direction, and I applauded their courage and commitment. Seemed to me that those who would take the "let's be reasonable" stand-- "those radicals are nuts"-- didn't do much to change things. My view was that those who pushed the boundaries way way beyond the comfort level of most people were essential to change. They pushed the boundaries such that what was considered acceptable middle ground, or whatever, moved to the left also. That was my own untutored analysis, based on my own opinions and observations at the time. I remember quite well coming to this point of view, and it seemed rather obvious to me at the time.

Only later did I learn, via internet reading, (20-30 years later) that this had been codified as a principle-- the Overton window or window of discourse. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton. His political aims were quite different from mine. Nonetheless, his stated theory is seemingly identical to what I at arrived at on my own. And, right now (2013), the ultra die hard religious right, and the ultra conservatives, and the neo-cons are pushing the Overton window firmly in a rightward direction. Way back when, in college, of course, I saw the radical lefties pushing the window to the left.

Back to the present: We have to keep pushing the window of discourse to the left. The ideas that Bernie champions, which after all are supported by a majority of voters, need to be put front and center. Read this from DWT.

The Man in The Middle lost-- and now we have a fascist in his place

2018 Senate Election Scorecard

Click to enlarge

by Gaius Publius

The chart above represents my best guess about the future split of the Senate, using only races that seem contested. Note:

• The Senate is currently divided 51-49 in favor of the Republicans, so the Democrats (and the two independents who caucus with them) are down two already.

• The column labeled "Change 1" shows a best-case result for Democrats. The column labeled "Change 2" shows a worst case result based on my read of the possibilities and probabilities.

The First Ten Races

Races in the above chart are numbered 1 through 15. The first ten all have clear leaders.

• Races 1–6 are all contests with Democratic incumbents where the Democrat is leading and expected to win, if only by single digits. Though there could be some surprises, they are not widely expected. Let's call those races for the Democrats. Net change: zero.

• The next four races, numbered 7 through 10, are more in doubt. They feature two Democratic incumbents and two Republican incumbents. In all four, the Republican is leading. Though things could change, I expect a Republican winner in each of them.

This means that Claire McCaskill and Heidi Heitkamp will lose, and Ted Cruz will keep his seat despite a strong challenge by Beto O'Roarke. Polls in the Texas race range from Tossup to Likely Republican, with Leans Republican the mean result, implying a mid-single-digit win for Cruz. We'll see.

If the predictions for races 1–10 hold, Democrats have lost two seats already.

Races Considered "Even"

Let's treat the next six races, numbered 11 through 16, as three groups of pairs. All of these races are scored "even" by polling.

• In the first pair of "even" races, the outcome is a little more predictable than the others. These feature two Democratic incumbents, Joe Donnelly (IN) and Joe Manchin (WV). If those outcomes are split — if Democrats win one and Republicans win the other — the Democrats lose another seat, for a net loss of –3.

It appears now that Donnelly will lose and Manchin will win, so I'm counting these outcomes as likely in the best case column (Change 1) for a net no-change on the two races. In the worse case column (Change 2), both lose, and Democrats are now –4 seats so far. 

• The second pair of "even" races are much harder to predict. These feature incumbents Democrat Nelson (FL), who's running against former governor Rick Scott, and Republican Dean Heller (NV), who's running against Democrat Jacky Rosen. If those two races are split, the composition of the Senate will depend on which way the split goes.

The Change 1 column shows both Democrats winning, in which case Democrats pick up one seat (NV). In the worse case column, both Democrats lose, and Democrats are down –5 seats so far.

I think it's slightly more likely that Heller will lose (Nevada is home to the Harry Reid machine) and that Scott will beat Nelson., so a middle outcome would have the two races split — Democrats taking NV and Republicans taking FL — for a net no change on the pair.

• The final pair of races are for two open seats (AZ and TN), both of which were held by Republicans. I expect a split to be the most likely outcome, and if I had to guess, Democrats will win in Arizona with Kyrsten Sinema and Republicans will win in Tennessee.

That's the best case; if so, Democrats pick up a seat from this pair. In the worst case, Republicans hold both seats, for a net of no change.

Summary

In the best case scenario (Change 1 column), the first ten races go as expected (for a loss of –2), and in the "even" races, Democrats lose Indiana but pick up Nevada and Arizona. The total change is a loss of one seat, and the new Senate is split 52-48 in favor of Republicans.

In the worst case scenario (Change 2 column), the first ten races go as expected (for a loss of –2), and of the "even" races, Democrats lose all of them, for a total change of –5 seats. In that scenario, the new Senate split is 56-44.

A middle case: The worst case scenario plays out, except that Sinema wins in AZ and Manchin wins in WV. That's still a net loss of three seats, and the new Senate is split 54-46.

In all of these cases, Democrats lose ground in the Senate — in some of them quite a lot — and Chuck Schumer, I have to say, has presided over a failure, primarily because of his candidate selection and his dogged defense of people like Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly.

The Bright Side

Democrats were never going to take the Senate anyway, not with this set of candidates doing what they've been doing.

Claire McCaskill is closing out the 2018 campaign with a call for "civility" and also immigrant-bashing caravan paranoia https://t.co/yCNmijWFul

— Zach Carter (@zachdcarter) November 2, 2018

On the bright side, with this house-cleaning Democrats can build back up from a base set of senators that excludes Heitkamp, Donnelly, McCaskill, and maybe even Manchin and Sinema.

GP
  

How Many Seats, How Many Seats?

Yesterday Kaiser Health released their brand new tracking poll. Among registered voters. 50% said they will vote for a Democrat and 38% said they will vote for a Republican for Congress. In April it was 46% Democrat and 38% Republican. They also broke it out in 2 swing states, Florida and Nevada. In Florida it was 49% for a Democrat and 43% for a Republican. In Nevada it was 45% Democrat and 43% Republican. Their poll shows a 40-54% approval-disapproval for Trump. There were 5 other polls released yesterday that tracked Trump's approval rating. He was underwater in all 5. Even the Republican Rasmussen Poll had him at 47% approval and 52% disapproval and they almost always show him with higher approval than disapproval numbers, the only poll that does.

Why am I telling you this? Simple. As Ashley Parker reported for the Washington Post, "Trump has deliberately placed himself at the center of the November elections, explicitly telling voters to imagine they’re casting a ballot for him, rather than their local representative… The president, meanwhile, has told White House aides that his supporters won’t come out to the polls if they don’t believe the election matters to him. He wants to campaign for Republicans six days a week-- and sees these mega-rallies as a testing ground for his own 2020 reelection… While aides around Trump have grown increasingly concerned about the prospect of Republicans losing the House, the president himself privately insists the polls are fake and that his performances at rallies will carry Republicans to victory."

Unless he knows that the cavalry is Kossacks are coming, he's even more delusional than usual... although it looks like Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly is betting on Trump.



Ron Brownstein, writing for The Atlantic-- The 2018 Midterms Are All About Trump-- sees two waves: a red wave in rural Trump country and an anti-red wave in the suburbs. The dynamic is "dimming Democrats’ prospects in the exurban and small-town districts mostly on the periphery of their target list in the House. But it is simultaneously solidifying the Democratic advantage in many of the white-collar suburban seats, especially those that preferred Hillary Clinton over Trump in 2016, key to their hopes of recapturing a House majority."

Both sides of this equation capture the continued transformation of congressional elections into quasi-parliamentary contests that are turning less on assessments of individual candidates and more on broader attitudes about whether voters want Congress to enable the president or check him. “In the last few elections, we’ve moved more toward a parliamentary system where you are voting based on the leader and not necessarily on your local candidate,” says Glen Bolger, a longtime Republican pollster.

This long-term shift toward nationalized congressional elections decided largely by attitudes about the president is affecting contests both in the places where Trump is popular and in those where he’s disliked. That means the party most satisfied with next month’s results may be the one with the most candidates who succeed at swimming against that current: Democrats who find ways to win in Trump country and Republicans who hold on in the major metropolitan areas moving away from him. At this point, pollsters in both parties don’t expect to find many examples on either side. “It’s going to be tough for both,” says Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster. Bolger concurs: “It’s possible that both are disappointed.”

The correlation between attitudes about the president and voting choices in congressional elections has been increasing over the past generation. In a recent paper examining long-term survey data, Gary Jacobson, a University of California at San Diego political scientist who specializes in Congress, found that the congruence between voters’ assessments of the president and whether they supported his party’s candidate in House and Senate contests ticked up in the 1980s and 1990s before rising more rapidly in midterm elections during this century.

Exit polls now track a powerful connection between attitudes toward the president and votes in both House and Senate elections. In the past three midterm elections-- 2006, 2010, and 2014-- exit polls found that 84 to 87 percent of voters who approved of the president’s performance voted for his party’s candidates in House elections. Simultaneously, 82 to 84 percent of those who disapproved of the president’s performance voted against his party’s House candidates. Since most voters in each election disapproved of the president’s performance, his party suffered substantial House losses each time.

Brownstein is smart but I disagree with his conclusion that "In the House, these late-season trends may be simultaneously reducing the odds that Democrats win 45 seats but somewhat increasing their chances of winning at least the 23 seats they need to recapture the majority. Democratic hopes look to be fading in many of the strongly Republican-leaning exurban and small-town seats that made the outer edge of their target list earlier this summer. Democratic chances in those places always turned on low GOP turnout, and that now appears much less likely." Looking at specific districts, not numerical mumbo jumbo, I see the Democrats winning not 45 seats, more than 50.

Rural voters don't care about this? Really?

Read Julie Swetnick's Charges Against Brett Kavanaugh

Does this seem cruel? Perhaps, but not nearly as cruel as what three credible witnesses have now alleged. Are there even more crimes in the wings? In cases like these, there are almost always more more crimes.

by Gaius Publius

Since this is a primary source, and I don't think most people have read it in full, I want to offer an opportunity to read in toto what Julie Swetnick alleges about Brett Kavanaugh and his behavior in the early 1980s.

Her sworn declaration is printed in full below. I could only find image files, but these are good ones. Click each to enlarge it to original size. It should be easy to get through this; there are only three pages.

But it should also be hard to get through this; the content is horrifying. She details multiple instances in which Kavanaugh was complicit in felony gang-rape. He was also likely a rapist as well — he was one of the men lined up outside the doors where drugged women were serially assaulted.

She also details her own drugging and gang-rape at a party attended by Kavanaugh. (She doesn't name Kavanaugh as one of her own rapists, but she says she was drugged against her will at the time.)

Read on:

The self-styled long-suffering virgin of Georgetown Prep.

I still don't know if he'll be confirmed, though if I were betting I'd say yes. Odds are Chuck Schumer will let Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly vote yes, allowing Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to vote a cosmetic no, though things could change quickly.

After that, we'll have to see.

GP
 

Indiana: Lesser Of Two Evils To The Rescue?

Joe Donnelly greets a right-wing rapist Trump wants confirmed

Thus cycle, I have very mixed emotions when it comes to writing about conservative Democrats. I am fully aware about what kind of damage they do to progressivism by relentlessly pulling the Democratic Party towards the right and usually reject less-of-two-evils politics-- the #1 organizing principle of the 21st century Democratic Party. But, this cycle... Trump. If you believe, as I do, that he really is an existential threat to our democracy, our families, our country you've got to be thinking about how to defend against him. One way-- the easiest way-- is through the ballot box. Electing even the worst Democrats-- Blue Dogs and New Dems, the whole corrupt Democrap garbage that makes up the massive and growing Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- is something that has to be seriously considered to stop Trump. Or does someone have a viable post-primary alternative?

Normally I wouldn't be cheering, for example, Tim Kaine's massive lead over neo-fascist Republican Corey Stewart in the Virginia Senate race, nor the fact that Republican Winsome Sears, an ex-Delegate just jumped into the race as a write-in candidate to give more mainstream Republicans an alternative to Stewart. Obviously. Blue America isn't about to add Tim Kaine to our 2018 Senate contributions page, but... I'm glad Kaine's going to win this one without breaking a sweat... and that Trump will probably be spending/wasting time campaigning in Virginia and turning out more Democratic voters there.

And I find myself hoping that Andrew Gillum has strong enough coattails in Florida-- where his gubernatorial campaign against neo-fascist Ron DeSantis is surging-- to pull elderly, bumbling conservative dullard Bill Nelson, who should have retired, over the finish line. Gillum has been leading DeSantis in every poll and in even poll by more than the last one. The new Reuters/Ipsos poll released yesterday shows Gillum leading DeSantis by 6 points (outside of the margin of error), while Nelson lags by one point.

All that leads to the Indiana situation. The Republican, Mike Braun, is a hopeless Trumpist. The Democrat, Joe Donnelly, is not exactly my cup of tea. He's an accidental senator who succeeded with a Hail Mary pass is 2012 when he was going to lose his House seat and decided to make a long-shot run for the Senate instead. Because of events that had virtually nothing to do with him-- the Indiana GOP imploded-- it worked and a House Blue Dog came over and became one of the Senate's most conservative Democrats, not as bad as Heidi Heitkamp or Joe Manchin... but almost. On the other hand, the Democrats can't afford to lose him if they're going to take back control of the Senate in November. The Associated Press did a report on the state of the race in Indiana yesterday, GOP frets about prospects for picking up Indiana Senate seat. It should be relatively easy-- Pence's home state, PVI of R+9 (same as Mississippi and Missouri), Trump beat Hillary 57-38%. But... Donnelly has been out-working Braun and is hardly rolling over and playing dead.

Groups that typically back GOP candidates, such as the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, are sitting on the sidelines. Braun’s recent three-stop “solutions” tour-- spread out across three days-- was ridiculed by Democrats, who pointed to Donnelly’s seven-day, 40-stop trek in August.

And while Braun, a multimillionaire businessman, took out $6.4 million in loans to fund his primary campaign, he also publicly groused about the cost. Now, with less than two months until the election, he has yet to purchase air time for October, while Donnelly has outspent him by almost double on TV and radio since June, records show.

That’s cause for concern, according to a half-dozen GOP officials, operatives and commentators familiar with the race, most of whom spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to offer candid assessments of the contest. They say Braun appears to be coasting at a time when he ought to be investing more of his own money and rallying the base.

Conservative talk radio host Rob Kendall summed up the GOP’s worries by pointing to Braun’s recent appearance with President Donald Trump at a rally in Evansville.

“He’s in front of (thousands of) people at the Ford Center and it sounds like you’re at a funeral,” said Kendall, who is a producer and has a show on Indianapolis-based WIBC radio. “I would have been like James Brown and the Blues Brothers shouting out ‘Do You See the Light’ to the congregation. And this guy, you have to check him for a pulse.”

Republicans have viewed Donnelly’s seat as a prime pickup opportunity in a state Trump won by nearly 20 points in 2016. The criticism of Braun’s performance reflects a sudden sense among the GOP that Senate contests in several states Trump carried may be tougher than expected and that control of the Republican-led chamber could be at stake-- a prospect that was unthinkable just a few weeks ago.

...While commuting back-and-forth between Indiana and Washington, Donnelly has held more than 190 campaign events since May-- more than double the number attended by Braun, who resigned from his seat in the Indiana Legislature to focus on campaigning.

Bob Grand, a GOP fundraiser and Indiana powerbroker, said Donnelly has done a “phenomenal job” campaigning, but doubted it will be enough to win in an overwhelmingly Republican state.

“He’s even featuring Donald Trump in his ads. What does that tell you?” Grand said.

Still, groups that have enthusiastically supported GOP nominees in the past are uncharacteristically absent.

In addition to the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, which opted against issuing an endorsement, the U.S. Chamber was mum over whether it will get involved. In 2016, the group spent at least $3.7 million backing GOP Sen. Todd Young in his race against Democrat Evan Bayh, a popular former Indiana governor and senator who previously worked for them.

Americans for Prosperity, the political arm of billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, interviewed Braun but decided not to directly support him. Two years ago, they launched a door-knocking and phone-bank operation that helped Young win.

On paper, Braun has everything the GOP wants: He built a national auto parts distribution company from the ground up, speaks with a subtle southern Indiana twang and is a virtual outsider to politics, despite his brief stint in the Legislature.

He also has the ability to self-fund.

During the GOP primary, Braun used his wealth, worth somewhere between $37 million and $95 million, to bury U.S. Reps. Todd Rokita and Luke Messer with more than $6.2 million worth of radio and TV spots, Federal Election Commission records show.

But Braun-- whose wife once described him to the Indianapolis Star as the “tightest guy I know”-- said after his May 8 victory that he wasn’t looking to do the same in the general election.

With November looming, his campaign only started to ramp up spending on TV ads this week. Meanwhile, Democratic groups and super PACs are set to spend $22 million, much of it ruthlessly attacking Braun’s business record.

They’ve seized on stories by the AP that revealed his companies racked up safety violations and were sued by employees for unfair treatment, including a worker kicked off health insurance days after he suffered a heart attack.

Democrats also labeled Braun a hypocrite for attacking Donnelly’s family business for outsourcing jobs to Mexico while using Chinese goods for his own brand of auto accessories.

This looks very optimistic. I wonder how Donnelly will vote on Kavanaugh, don't you?

Two Months From Tomorrow...

But rotten conservative DCCC staffer is working to undermine him

Saturday, President Obama headlined a rally in Anaheim for California Democratic candidates that the DCCC is pushing: Katie Porter, Harley Rouda, Mike Levin, Gil Cisneros, Josh Harder and T.J. Cox. Katie Hill was also invited but had a previous commitment. Conservative racist staffers at the DCCC are seeking to undermine Ammar Campa-Najjar, who infuriated them by beating their right-wing corporate schmuck candidate in the primary, so they didn't invite him. Ammar,who used to work for Obama, was personally invited by the president and showed up-- but was kept off the stage by a DCCC stooge, Kyle Layman, who doesn't care what President Obama wants as long as he can fulfill his own right-wing agenda. People are always asking me what Layman has over Dan Sena and Ben Ray Lujan that make them keep him around. He really is a cancer on the 2018 election cycle. You can say "fuck you" to the DCCC by contributing to Ammar's campaign here. Obama seemed to be promising ultimate hope for Americans sick of the lies, chaos and dysfunction that define the Trump Regime and the Republicans in Congress who enable it: "When we're not stepping up, other voices fill the void. The good news is in two months, we have a chance to restore sanity in our politics."

Over the weekend, Phil Rucker at the Washington Post, among others, made the point that the midterms have shaped up to be all about Trump-- very bad news for Republicans, especially for Republicans in swing districts where Trump is detested. Even when poll respondents say they will be voting on issues like healthcare or jobs, ultimately it is always either a wish to find candidates to hold Trump accountable or, among imbeciles, a wish to find candidates to back Trump's toxic, suicidal agenda that dominates.

Rucker wrote that "The Nov. 6 election that will determine control of Congress is likely to hinge on the president-- the man and his rash actions, more so than his policies-- to a remarkable degree. The spike in Democratic enthusiasm that has Republicans fearful of losing their House majority is driven largely by opposition to Trump personally-- his attacks on civic institutions, his impetuousness and the chaos that tornadoes around him-- strategists on both sides say."

Mike Allen reported that on Wednesday afternoon, Republican congressional leaders met with Trump in the Roosevelt Room. They were cranky and complaining-- the House leaders know they're likely to be in the minority come January, helped along by his tariffs and unpopularity. POTUS shared their mood: This was Woodward-anonymous week." Claims that Trump, an economic illiterate and bumbling moron, is behind the economic expansion that Obama engineered and put into play, are not going to do much for Republicans in November, primarily because, as Allen writes, "despite relative prosperity in the nation and peace in the world, both sides expect a slash-and-burn fall-- focused on what they see as the evil intent of the other side, and aimed at inflaming their own voters." In the end, more voters hate Trump than like him. He's incredibly unpopular going into a first term midterm and it is not a stretch to see his party lose 60 or more seats. (If the DCCC didn't exist in its current form, there is little doubt the Republicans would lose 100 seats.)

The latest poll by IPSOS for Reuters is just devastating for Trump and his supporters. Among registered voters 55% disapprove and just 42% approve. It's even worse among independents-- who will determine the midterm results-- 56% disapproving and just 38% approving.

In terms of Congress, disapproval was even worse. Among Democrats 76% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. 56% of Republicans agree and so do 66% of independents. When asked which party's candidate they plan to vote for in November, 44% said Democrats and 35% said Republicans. Among independents only 18% say they plan to vote for a Republican (while 29% say they'll vote for a Democrat).

How are these numbers impacting individual races? Last week Marist polled Indiana's Senate race for NBC. With a statewide R+9 PVI (same as Mississippi and Missouri), Indiana gave Trump a 1,557,286 (56.8%) to 1,033,126 (37.9%) win over Hillary. She won only 4 of the state's 92 counties. The new poll shows Democrat Joe Donnelly beating Trumpist Mike Braun 49-43% among likely voters.

Tennessee is even redder than Indiana. The statewide PVI Is R+14. Trump eviscerated Hillary 1,522,925 (60.7%) to 870,695 (34.7%). She won 3 counties out of the state's 95.And yet... all the non-partisan polling shows Democrat Phil Bredensen leading extreme Trumpist Marsha Blackburn. The latest, by Marist for NBC, has Bredesen beating Blackburn 48-44% among registered voters and 48-46% among likely voters.

Florida is the ultimate swing state. The PVI is R+2 and Trump did narrowly beat Hillary 4,617,886 (49% to 48.8%) but all the post-primary gubernatorial polls show progressive Democrat Andrew Gillum beating far right Trumpist Ron DeSantis. The most recent poll, by Quinnipiac shows Gillum leading 50% to 47%. Trump's negative popularity rating in the state is hurting DeSantis.

Texas is to the GOP what California is to the Democrats. But this year, Ted Cruz's Texas Senate seat is a "toss-up." The most recent poll, by Emerson, shows a dead-heat, well within the margin of error between Democrat Beto O'Rourke and Cruz, who TRump's budget director, Mick Mulvaney, says may be too unlikable to win.

But it isn't just how unlikable Cruz is. Of Texas' 36 congressional districts, 25 are held by Republicans. Of those 25, there are 11 in danger of flipping blue!

• TX-02, where Todd Litton (D) has a $407,675 to $100,252 cash advantage over Dan Crenshaw (R)
• TX-06 , where Jana Lynne Sanchez (D has a $67,772- $25,157 cash advantage over Ron Wright (R)
• TX-07, where Democratic challenger Lizzie Fletcher has outraised GOP incumbent John Culberson $2,312,615 to $2,007,183
• TX-10, where progressive Mike Siegel may be on the verge of pulling off one of the cycle's biggest shocks by beating Michael McCaul
• TX-21, where Joseph Kopser (D) outraised Chip Roy (R) $1,550,139 to $934,789
• TX-23, where Gina Jones (D) is running neck and neck with Republican incumbent Will Hurd
• TX-31, where MJ Hegar has outraised incumbent John Carter $1,612,439 to $996,707
• TX-32, where Colin Allred has pulled ahead of Pete Sessions
• TX-36, where Dayna Steele is also on the verge of one of the cycle's biggest upsets by toppling Trumpist dentist Brian Babin.

Please consider helping turn win back Texas by clicking on this Blue America Texas thermometer and contributing what you can to Beto and the progressive Democrats running for congressional seats:

In Elections, We're Better Off With Bold Colors Than Pale Pastels

Probably never

It doesn't happen that frequently that we get to test political approaches in the real world and see actual results. Something that I expect to help vulnerable red state Senate Democrats: backing policies that are popular with voters. Something that I expect to hurt vulnerable red state Senate Democrats: playing the Republican-lite game before the election.

Joe Donnelly (D-IN) was in the House before a Hail Mary pass and a lunatic Republican candidate thrust him into the Senate. Donnelly was House Blue Dog and an unremarkable backbencher who spent more time worrying about how to keep his career going than how to serve his constituents. His voting record was a stinker but... better than a Republican. That still describes him. Just this morning Donnelly said he supports giving Trump billions of dollars for his border wall this fall. "I’m fine with providing him some more. I actually voted for border wall funding three different times." He has a solid "F" from ProgressivePunch and his crucial vote score makes him the 4th worst Democrat in the Senate. Only Doug Jones (AL), Joe Manchin (WV) and Heidi Heitkamp (ND) have worse records. Indiana has more Democrats though-- and the least toxic PVI:

• Alabama: R+14
• West Virginia: R+19
• North Dakota: R+17
• Indiana: R+9

Remember, Obama actually won Indiana in 2008. He took 1,374,039 votes (49.85%) to McCain's 1,345,648 (48.82%). And of Indiana's 92 counties, Obama won 15 of them, almost all the big ones. He won Donnelly's own congressional district by 10 points. The state isn't as cemetery for Democrats, despite Hillary's devastating loss to Trump in 2016. Hillary won only 4 counties and Trump won the state 1,557,286 (58.8%) to 1,033,126 (37.9%). Donnelly behaves as though he were the senator from Alabama, West Virginia or North Dakota though. He's pretty gutless. Rather than embracing popular progressive programs, he plays the Republican-lite game.

Keep in mind that Bernie won the Indiana primary in 2016-- 335,256 votes (52.5%) to Hillary's 303,382 (47.5%) and the only reason she walked away with 47 convention vote to his 44 was because Wasserman Schultz-- as she did across the country-- rigged it for Hillary... regardless of what Democratic voters said they wanted.

On Monday, Donnelly took a gamble-- disappointing Indiana Democrats in the hope of pleasing moderate Republicans and independents by rejecting single-payer healthcare. Stupid move. Single-payer is very popular and he will de-motivate Democratic and independent voters with gaining a single Republican. He's an idiot. He also rejected the idea of replacing ICE with an organization that doesn't kidnap children. In his interview he bragged about voting with Trump 62% of the time.

OK, now the other side of the coin, a report from Sylvan Lane for The Hill yesterday, Vulnerable Dems side with Warren in battle over consumer bureau, the point being that some of the Senate's most vulnerable Democrats-- though not Donnelly-- are siding with Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in a fight with Señor Trumpanzee over his controversial pick, Kathy Kraninger, to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Heitkamp (ND) and Tester (MT) are sticking with the Democrats-- and the best interests of their constituents-- on this one.

The move carries some risk for Tester and Heitkamp as Trump and the GOP seek to tie centrists running in red states to liberal leaders in their party, including Warren.

It also suggests that moderate Democrats, after battling Warren over legislation rolling back parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law earlier this year, are wary of another fight with the powerful senator and her allies on one of her signature issues.

The Senate Banking Committee is expected to vote on Kraninger’s nomination when the Senate reconvenes next week. Republicans quickly coalesced around Trump’s pick, an associate director at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and most Democrats are expected to oppose her.

Kraninger, who was nominated in June, is likely to be confirmed along party lines for a five-year term as director of the CFPB, empowering her with almost exclusive authority over the agency’s budget, regulations and enforcement actions.

Former CFPB assistant director Quyen Truong, now a partner at the law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, said Kraninger “could fundamentally change the way the bureau operates.”

The loudest opposition to Kraninger has come from Warren, a member of the Banking panel who is credited with designing and staffing the CFPB from when she was an adviser to former President Obama.

Aides to five other Senate Democrats on the Banking Committee, including Heitkamp and Tester, said they will vote against Kraninger. The panel’s minority has been united in its skepticism of Kraninger’s qualifications.

The OMB official has no direct experience crafting or enforcing financial regulations, and Democrats fear she will continue CFPB Acting Director Mick Mulvaney’s massive drawback of the consumer watchdog’s oversight.

...[V]oting against Kraninger is seen as helping moderates shore up their Democratic support.

“Heidi probably feels that she’s in a position to cast a ‘no’ vote and appease Sen. Warren without too much disruption back home,” said a former Senate aide now advocating for financial firms on K Street.

Tester, Heitkamp and Donnelly faced harsh criticism from liberals when they voted with Senate Republicans on a Dodd-Frank rollback bill.

Warren and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), ranking member of the Banking Committee, led the Democratic opposition to that measure, backed by the majority of their caucus and a slew of progressive groups.

Supporters of the legislation said it was a targeted effort to ease unnecessary burdens on community banks and credit unions that were unnecessarily lumped in with big Wall Street firms under the Dodd-Frank law. Liberal critics countered that the bill would do irreparable damage and risk another financial crisis akin to the one that Dodd-Frank was meant to prevent.

Democratic divisions over the bill went public, with liberals and moderates accusing each other of exaggeration and dishonesty. Tension peaked when Warren rebuked fellow Democrats by name in a fundraising email ripping the rollback effort.

The Senate passed the Dodd-Frank rollback by a wide bipartisan margin in March, the House cleared it two months later and Trump signed the bill into law on May 24, flanked by Heitkamp and more than a dozen Republicans. Tester and Donnelly were not invited to the White House photo-op.

Let's take this one step further. I just read an essay at the conservative Weekly Standard by Jonathan Last, A Democratic Socialist Could Beat Trump, meant as a warning to Republicans, but also applicable to garden variety status quo conservative Democrats.

Last warns his readers that progressives "reject the notion that our way to victory is having a centrist, moderate right-leaning strategy that feels like we could peel off Romney Republicans, versus investing in communities of color, marginalized groups and progressive white people." His warns them that it isn't as crazy a notion as it sounds to the conservative mind. He was talking about conservative Republicans but I'm more concerned about conservative Democrats.

It has become an article of faith among Republicans that Trump will be very lucky if the Democrats nominate a radical progressive-- or maybe even a socialist-- to challenge him in 2020. That would assure his re-election, the thinking goes, because Trump won by converting disillusioned working-class white Obama voters in the Rust Belt precisely because the Democrats were already too far out of the mainstream. If Democrats double-down on their progressivism, then Trump might be able to win with two pair, instead of having to draw to an inside straight.

On the one hand, that makes a certain kind of sense. On the other hand, it’s hard to square this belief with the argument that conservatives have been making for 40 years: that the key to victory is bold colors, not pale pastels. Because if the bold colors strategy could work for Republicans, why couldn’t it work for Democrats, too?

Think about it this way: In the wake of the 2012 election, Republicans spent a lot of time on their own autopsy and came away with the conclusion that if they were going to be competitive again at the national level, they had to moderate their stance on immigration. Instead, the party nominated the biggest immigration extremist since Levi Boone. And he won.

But it isn’t just Trump. In 2008, Democrats had the choice between a centrist candidate and the second coming of Howard Dean. They chose the most liberal candidate available, and then Barack Obama won 53 percent of the vote and the biggest landslide since 1984.

...[L]ook at 2016: Most Republicans assumed that the easiest path to the White House was by winning Nevada, New Hampshire, and Virginia. Trump lost all three of those states, but picked up Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez insists that for Democrats, “Our swing voter is not red to blue. It's non-voter to voter.”

There’s no reason to automatically assume that she's wrong, or that Howard Dean’s children will automatically suffer the same fate he did.