Massachusetts Primary Results-- Progressive Movement Won The Big Prize, But...

Markey won his race handily tonight. Kennedy conceded. I bet Pelosi didn't call AOC and concede to her though. Every progressive group that endorsed Markey (other than Blue America) is trying to claim the credit but it really was a team effort that centered totally around Markey. Proof of that pudding. The other progressives picks (albeit not Blue America's)-- Alex Morse in the first congressional district and Ihssane Leckey in the 4th (the seat Kennedy gave up)-- lost.

A quick word about them. Both were perfect on policy and would have voted right all the time. That isn't all that Congress Members do though and although I thought Morse would make an infinitely better member than Richie Neal and that Leckey would have been better than Jesse Mermell, Jack Auchincloss, Becky Grossman or Natalia Linos-- each of whom appears to have out-polled her-- I didn't think I should ask Blue America contributors to give their money to either. Why? I got a feeling that neither had some intangible traits needed-- like "people skills"-- to succeed in Congress. I would have voted, without hesitation, for each of them, but that is different from contributing to them or urging other people to, especially when there are so many prospects in dire need of those contributions in a progressive universe that doesn't have infinite resources.

As for Kennedy, I expect he'll wind up in Biden's cabinet or be given some other stepping-stone job for his inevitable run for the presidency. Although... isn't he the first Kennedy to ever lose an election in Massachusetts?

Pelosi's endorsement of Kennedy turned out to be a kiss of death for him, starting with a big jump in contributions for Markey as soon as Pelosi interfered. Kennedy was never able to articulate a reason for voters to abandon Markey-- and neither could Pelosi (nor could Mark Pocan, another Kennedy endorser who fell flat on his face while splitting the Congressional Progressive Caucus from its grassroots supporters). 

The partial results available now show Markey beating Kennedy 55.52% to 44.86%. Establishment Pelosi ally Richard Neal is up over Alex Morse 59.02% to 40.98%. With all 14 precincts reporting Morse lost his own town, Holyoke, where he is mayor, to Neal, 4,366 (52.56%) to 3,940 (47.44).

With 80% of precincts counted, MA-04 is too close to call between Jesse Mermell (22.37%) and Jake Auchincloss (22.29%). Leckey came in 5th with around 11%.

All the results should be in tomorrow when I'll be a guest on Brad Friedman's radio show too discuss tonight's results.

What Will Joe Kennedy Do After His Congressional Career Ends Tomorrow? A Biden Sub-Cabinet Position?

Tomorrow is primary day in Massachusetts and the more progressive of the two candidates, incumbent Ed Markey, is ahead of Joe Kennedy III in the Senate race. Every public poll this summer has shown Markey ahead and the latest-- an Emerson poll released yesterday-- has him beating Kennedy 56-44%, The RealClearPolitics polling average has Markey ahead 52.0% to 40.8%, an 11.2% gap. That's some turn-around since the first poll taken a year ago that showed Kennedy beating Markey 42-25% (a since evaporated 17 point lead for Kennedy).

Much of the national coverage of the election has been about endorsements. One way of looking at it is that the entire progressive grassroots movement-- from MoveOn (92% of whose Massachusetts members opted for Markey), Daily Kos, NARAL, Sierra Club, HRC, Peace Action and the Working Families Party to DFA, Indivisible, Our Revolution, Sunrise, Justice Dems, PCCC, PDA and Blue America-- has come out for Markey. But the media is also looking at this as a battle between Pelosi-- who hypocritically endorsed Kennedy, probably doing him more harm than good-- and AOC, who validated Markey as the progressive choice. Kennedy was probably further harmed when the only sitting U.S. senator to endorse him was the most right-wing Democrat in Congress, Arizona crackpot Kyrsten Sinema. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, is backing Markey. All the massachusetts members of Congress who have weighed in, have weighed in for Markey. And another major progressive validator, Ro Khanna endorsed Markey. Two other widely mistrusted members of Pelosi's leadership team-- Hoyer and Hakeem Jeffries-- have also come out for Kennedy.

Kennedy's congressional endorsement roster is a good signal to not support him. Some of Congress' most loathsome Wall Street-owned New Dems-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- are on Team Kennedy, from Filemon Vela, Conor Lamb and coke-freak Pete Aguilar to worthless conservative Dems like Gil Cisneros, Juan Vargas, Elissa Slotkin, Xochitl Torres Small, Sharice Davids, Sean Patrick Maloney, Derek Kilmer, Blue Dog chair Stephanie Murphy and David Trone the crooked Maryland businessman who spent a horrific $31,327,397 of his own cash over 2 cycles to buy a seat. Many are hoping to build relationships with the Kennedy Machine-- and it isn't only conservative Dems in ye ole tit-for-tat, transactional camp. Establishment progressive Mark Pocan, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who imagines himself running for Senate in 2022, has led a number of progressives into the Kennedy tent, putting them in opposition to their own grassroots supporters-- terrible mistake for a movement Pocan has never given a shit about.

Meanwhile, Gabe Debenedetti reported for New York Magazine that Bernie"has not endorsed Markey-- who backed Elizabeth Warren for president-- and shows no signs of planning to do so, despite pleas from Markey and plenty of his advocates... Markey and Sanders served together in the House for 16 years, and in the Senate-- where Warren also serves-- for six.)"

National coverage of the race has tended to focus on two big issues: Markey’s position in the progressive firmament and persistent questions about why, exactly, Kennedy is running if he has few substantive complaints about the senator. “I have been a fan of Ed Markey’s since he led the fight to reform the state’s judiciary when I was governor and that was a long time ago,” 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis told me this week. “I am also a fan of Joe Kennedy’s, my congressman, but I can’t for the life of me understand why he is putting us all through this to defeat a fine U.S. Senator. He should be in Iowa digging up votes for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.” Together, these arguments appear to have made Markey a slight favorite.

Largely inspired by the endorsements and ongoing involvement of Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement (a group of young environmental organizers), national progressives have joined Markey’s cause. In a year where the presidential race has offered few clear opportunities for the left flank of the Democratic party to push back against the center-left, this race has seen more vicious intra-party brawling than it might have in a different political context. “Kennedy is a really good release valve when you know you can’t go after Biden,” said one national progressive leader backing Markey.

“What the progressive movement is saying-- particularly the young progressive movement-- is they’re trying to make clear that what happened in 2018 is not just a bunch of women of color knocking off a bunch of old white guys,” Markey’s campaign manager John Walsh told me, explicitly comparing his candidate to Charles Booker, who fell short in Kentucky’s Senate primary in March, and Cori Bush, who defeated longtime congressman William Lacy Clay earlier this month. “When a 74-year-old almost-50-year veteran defeats-- if it happens-- the Mt. Rushmore legacy of Massachusetts politics, maybe national politics, it’s not about how old you are. It’s not about the color of your skin. It’s actually about the policy.”

Everything Kennedy does-- every breath he takes, every move he makes, every bond he breaks, every step he takes, every word he says, every game he plays-- is all about the presidency. It's revolting because it's based on absolutely nothing but his bloodline. He hasn't accomplished a single thing and hasn't distinguished himself in any way other thinly a disgusting display of naked ambition. He's going to lose tomorrow because he never managed to explain why he's running against Markey. In the age of Trump, Massachusetts doesn't have enough low-info Democrats for JK-III to win.

Yesterday Politico reported that "Kennedy’s campaign believes Markey has an advantage among voters who have already cast ballots by mail-- namely white, well-educated voters in the suburbs-- but that high turnout on voting day would lend itself to Kennedy... Pelosi also provided a financial bump for the congressman. Kennedy raised $100,000 within a day of Pelosi's endorsement, according to his campaign. But Markey, who’s assembled a potent small-dollar fundraising operation, says he raised four times that amount-- $400,000-- in the 24 hours after Pelosi weighed in, much of it from progressives frustrated with Pelosi’s decision to intervene."

Civil War Breaking Out Among Both Congressional Parties

Pelosi made a very big mistake a couple weeks ago. She endorsed Joe Kennedy III in his bid to unseat and replace Massachusetts progressive Ed Markey. Pelosi's endorsement immediately turned the race around. Kennedy had been substantially ahead and Pelosi's kiss of death, brought a tidal wave of momentum into the race-- for Markey. Since Pelosi's endorsement there have been two public polls. Suffolk University's Massachusetts Senate poll shows Markey beating Kennedy by an astounding 10 points and the Data for Progress poll a few days ago has Markey up 7 points. This is quite the turn-around from the 17 point lead Kennedy began the race with!

Incumbents usually try to stay out of primaries, especially primaries that involve incumbents. But as all DWT readers are well aware, the only accountability for incumbents in deep blue (or deep red for that matter) districts comes through primaries. Pelosi wasn't attempting to give Ed Markey an accountability moment-- although she opposes the Green New Deal legislation he and AOC wrote-- but was instead trying to cultivate the Kennedy Clan for one reason or another. Same with 2022 Wisconsin Senate hopeful, Mark Pocan, who also endorsed Kennedy against the much more progressive Markey, even though Pocan is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Yesterday Melanie Zenona and Heather Caygle, reporting for Politico wrote that the congressional primary taboo is breaking down. They speculated that "lawmakers, aides and strategists in both parties say the pattern will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. It’s a shift that reflects the ideological-- and anti-establishment-- churn taking place in the Donald Trump era, and it’s sparking concern among the old guard about rising intraparty warfare."

"More and more members of Congress are going to look and say 'rules are rules' but if in fact there’s a district that’s suffering… we’re going to see a lot more members of Congress supporting challengers,” said Marie Newman, who knocked off longtime Illinois Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski earlier this year with the backing of several prominent Democrats.

Even as leaders in both parties have tried to paint any decision to wield influence in primaries as a “special” case, younger firebrands are interpreting their leadership’s involvement as a green light to show support and spend money on the challengers they prefer.

“If the establishment is going to start shooting at the outsiders and the pro-Trump elements of our caucus, then the bullets aren’t only going to be flying in one direction,” said Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, who backed the successful GOP challenger to Rep. Ross Spano (R-FL) after a member of GOP leadership targeted one of his other colleagues.

Playing in primaries has long been looked down upon in both the Republican and Democratic Party, where leaders deploy multi-million-dollar campaign arms to shield incumbents and squash any potential challengers. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took it a step further this cycle-- enforcing a “blacklist” of vendors who work for candidates seeking to oust sitting lawmakers, a move that outraged progressives and motivated them to get even more involved in primary campaigns this cycle.

“These places operate on members’ dues,” said Brendan Buck, a GOP strategist, referring to the parties’ campaign arms. “To be able to get members to contribute, they need to convince them it’s an incumbent protection operation.” Otherwise, he added, “that trust is eroded” and “the money stops coming in.”

Plus, it’s dangerous to take a shot and miss. Leadership used to even shy away from open primaries amid fears of picking the wrong candidate and alienating a future colleague.

“It’s a risky play, no doubt,” said Buck, who served as a top aide to former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI). “You better be damn sure it’s gonna work if you’re gonna do it. People have long memories.”

But now, insurgent lawmakers angry with the establishment and tired of abiding by the kind of decorum that once governed Washington are looking to flex their muscles in primaries — and put leadership on notice.

“No one gets to complain about primary challenges again,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response to Pelosi’s endorsement of Kennedy. The freshman lawmaker, who has won the ire of some colleagues for her openness to supporting primary challenges, also called on the DCCC to get rid of its vendor blacklist. “It seems like less a policy and more a cherry-picking activity,” she wrote.

This is hardly the first time rank-and-file lawmakers have engaged in primaries-- although many more are openly doing so this year-- but it’s now easier than it was a decade ago to actually wield influence through the use of grassroots fundraising and social media.

“The old ways of Washington empower leadership through money. But we’re starting to see that the message and movement may be more important than money,” said Gaetz, who swore off PAC funding. “In today’s world of social media, digital communication and wall-to-wall cable television, the leadership no longer has a stranglehold on the brand or the messengers.”

The 2022 cycle may offer further opportunity for insurgents, as incumbents may be facing entirely new constituencies after the latest round of redistricting.

Allies of Pelosi have defended her decision to back Kennedy, arguing the speaker did not undermine her policy of fiercely protecting House incumbents since she was weighing in on a Senate race. Progressive lawmakers and strategists have dismissed that explanation.

“What we’re seeing right now is the Democratic establishment really being honest in public about what they’re doing. What’s not a change is them taking sides in primaries-- they have long done it for years and years and years, they’ve just been more private about it,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.

Ocasio-Cortez, who declined to be interviewed for this story, shot to prominence after toppling one of the most powerful Democrats in the House: Joe Crowley, the Democratic Caucus chair who was often mentioned as a potential future speaker. A fellow member of her liberal “squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), took down longtime Rep. Mike Capuano in 2018 and has since backed other primary challengers.

Progressive challengers have already unseated several long-entrenched Democratic incumbents this year, including Lipinski, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel in New York, and Rep. Lacy Clay in Missouri.

If Neal is defeated by Holyoke mayor Alex Morse, it would be a huge victory for Ocasio-Cortez and a disappointment for Pelosi. The speaker spent several minutes praising Neal’s progressive bona fides at a news conference Thursday and said his district would suffer “a tremendous loss” if he’s ousted.

...But both Gaetz and Ocasio-Cortez have serious sway on the right and left, respectively, so if they do decide to get more involved next cycle, things could get messy. Several other Gaetz-backed candidates sailed to victory in open Florida GOP primaries last week, including far-right activist Laura Loomer who has been banned from Twitter and Facebook for racist comments and attacks on Islam but who has little shot at winning in November.

“One of the jobs of leadership is to keep the peace amongst your team. A real quick way to have your team fall apart is if there is suspicion that certain members are trying to unseat other ones,” Buck said. “Politics is a team sport. And if your team devolves into this type of fighting, it’s really hard to put that back together.”

As I pointed out yesterday, the increasingly dominant and uber-corrupt corporate-backed New Dem caucus has been given the keys to the DCCC. Their endorsement list is basically the Red-to-Blue program this cycle. Two of their most recent endorsements are in jungle primary states-- California and Washington-- where November elections can pit two members of the same party. Vile corporate conservative Sara Jacobs is running against progressive Georgette Gomez in San Diego and another corporate conservative, Marilyn Strickland is trying to defeat state Rep Beth Doglio for the congressional seat in Thurston (Olympia) and Pierce (Tacoma area) counties that Denny Heck is giving up. Jacobs and Strickland are both being backed by the New Dem PAC, while Gomez and Doglio are being backed by the Progressive Caucus. I'm guessing that unless the House Dems dump Pelosi as leader-- and pronto-- this kind of intra-party fighting will accelerate into all-out civil war. (NOTE: You can contribute to both Gomez and Doglio here.)

Kiss Of Death Endorsements: Trump And Pelosi

I know I don't have to interpret that Twitter poll for you, although if you don't know who Shahid Buttar is, he's the progressive Democrat who, along with Nancy Pelosi, came out of the March jungle primary and will face her one-on-one in November. (You can contribute to Shahid's campaign here, as you can see, the only candidate endorsed by this blog.)

After Pelosi exhibited startling, even breath-taking hypocrisy by endorsing Joe Kennedy III who is challenging incumbent Democratic Senator Ed Markey for his Massachusetts seat, just 6.8% of respondents said her endorsement will influence them to favor Kennedy or favor him more. On the other hand... well you can see.

Most Republican senators aren't asking for Trump's endorsement. Like Pelosi's, an endorsement by Trump is just toxic-- especially among independents. Sure, in states or districts that are so heavily Republican, an endorsement from Trump or Pence or Mitch McConnell would be a net plus... and in deep red House districts it makes sense to ask for an endorsement. Senate seats are different. Trump is still popular in Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma and the Dakotas but don't expect to see Trump endorsements being ballyhooed by incumbent senators where independent voters determine winners. I don't know what John Cornyn (R-TX) is going to do but I would bet that Susan Collins (ME), Cory Gardner (CO), Thom Tillis (NC), and Joni Ernst (IA) aren't going to be advertising-- at least not to a general audience on TV or radio-- that Trump is backing them.

On the other hand, in Alaska, where nearly half the voters are independents, there is a lot of ballyhooing of Trump's endorsement of Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan-- all of it from Independent Al Gross who is running on the Democratic Party line. I spoke with Gross' campaign manager yesterday and he was almost gleeful to have seen Trump endorse Sullivan. "I hope President Trump comes up here to campaign for Dan," he said. "A majority of the state doesn't approve of him, and with his help, we can make that 60%!" He sent me this:

Yesterday, Collins announced that part-time Maine resident George W. Bush-- remember, relative to Trump and for many people, the stink has worn off now-- has endorsed her-- his first endorsement of 2020. "The nod from the former president, whose politics appear centrist by Trump-era standards, may nudge some traditional Republicans into Collins’ corner," wrote David Sharp for the Associated Press. "Trump has not endorsed the Maine senator, whose race is among a handful critical to Republicans’ hopes of keeping control of the Senate, where they have a 53-47 advantage. Collins, meanwhile, has not said whether she intends to vote for Trump." Fellow New England Republican, Governor Phil Scott (R-VT) made an announcement yesterday that leaves no doubt he doesn't want and would not accept Trump's endorsement: "I won't be voting for President Trump... I have not decided, at this point, whether to cast a vote for former Vice President Biden... something I would consider."

After Pelosi's endorsement of Joe Kennedy III infuriated progressives-- not as much because of the pick as because of Pelosi's disgusting hyocrisy-- AOC sent her followers a fundraising letter from her own campaign but for for Markey, a staffer explaining the double standard:

Last year, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee instituted a new blacklist-- targeting staffers and companies who worked for primary challengers. Unsurprisingly, that overwhelmingly targeted people who worked with progressives.

Now, it’s clear: That blacklist was never just meant to "protect incumbents." It was meant to block progressive leaders from being elected, like Ayanna Pressley, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, or even Alexandria in 2018.

...Markey is not taking the safe route. He’s causing good trouble in Washington, fighting for international peace, a Green New Deal, and dismantling ICE. These are hard fights to win. Many look at them and back down. But not Ed Markey.

Markey is listening to the next generation of leaders-- the young folks on the ground working day in and day out to change the world-- and does everything in his power to amplify their voices on Capitol Hill. If Washington had more leaders like Ed Markey, we’d be a lot better off.

Scary that Pelosi is no longer self-aware enough to understand that her endorsement really is a kiss of death in most places in the country-- even in as blue a state as Massachusetts. Isn't she supposed to be retiring now and passing along her seat to her daughter? You know, the dynasty thing-- like the Kennedys.

Markey vs Kennedy-- If You're A Progressive Voter, There Should Be No Hesitation

JFK, 1960 on Kings Highway in front of Dubrow's

Progressive Power Hour? Was there one for AOC or Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar when their reelections were challenged by big money reactionaries in the last couple of months? There may have been... but I never heard about them. But I did hear about tomorrow's Power Hour on behalf of Joe Kennedy's campaign to displace the far more progressive-- and effective-- Ed Markey in the Senate. This came as an e-mail over the weekend:

We're excited to share the updated panel for Wednesday's progressive power hour! This Wednesday, progressive leaders Mark Pocan, Raúl Grijalva, and Linda Sánchez will co-host a progressive power hour with Joe!

They’ll be talking about what’s at stake in this primary election, and what makes Joe the right leader to usher in the change Massachusetts needs. The discussion will also include ways you can get involved in these critical final weeks, and how to cast your ballot, whether it’s by mail or in person.

...Join us Wednesday night to hear from these progressive powerhouses about the change Joe will bring to the Senate, and about how you can get involved!

The national and the Massachusetts progressive grassroots has come out very strongly for Ed Markey-- and not just Blue America-- Our Revolution, Sunrise Movement, Peace Action, Progressive Massachusetts, MoveOn, PDA, Indivisible, the Working Families Party... So has Massachusetts' other senator, Elizabeth Warren, as well as AOC, Zephyr Teachout, Ady Barkan, and Cory Booker. Younger, issue oriented Democrats overwhelmingly want to see Markey, who is far more progressive than Kennedy, reelected. Older, fuzzily romantic Democrats seem excited about JKIII, although few seem to be able to explain why. Maybe Pocan, Grijalva and Sánchez will be able to tomorrow at their Power Hour. Alienating the progressive movement's grassroots does need to be explained, especially if Pocan is really serious about making a U.S. Senate run in 2022, something Chuck Schumer has already been making jokes about behind closed doors. He's going to be looking for allies-- allies who are very likely going to remember him stabbing Ed Markey in the back this year.





Meanwhile, some of the absolute worst Democrats in Congress are being touted by Kennedy as his supporters, Kyrsten Sinema, the closest thing to a right-wing Republican (and psychopath) among Senate Dems, coke freak New Dem, Pete Aguilar-- as well as plenty of other corrupt corporate New Dems, Blue Dogs and bought-and-paid for conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, like Juan Vargas (CA), Filomen Vela (TX), Gil Cisneros (CA), Derek Kilmer (WA), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Annie Kuster (NH), Conor Lamb (PA), Stephanie Murphy (FL), Colin Allred (TX), Ellisa Slotkin (MI), Angie Craig (MN)... odd there's no one from Massachusetts on the list. They're all either staying neutral or backing Markey. Oh, wait! He does have a high-profile Massachusetts endorsement: Republican former Governor Bill Weld.

The first big name politician I ever met was JFK-- two decades before Joe Kennedy III was born. I was 12 and my mom took me to see the charismatic somewhat conservative senator campaigning in Brooklyn, to show the Democratic establishment that he was popular in liberal bases. He was. But a police horse stepped on my foot in the tumult and I was brought inside Dubrow's where only local party big wigs were allowed. The soon-to-be-president came over and rubbed my foot and wished me well. That was nice. By the time he was assassinated I was no longer a fan. But when his brother, Robert Kennedy-- Robert Kennedy III's grandfather who was assassinated before he was born-- ran for New York senator I got a job at his campaign headquarters as an elevator operator. I wasn't a big fan of his either, although he seemed to gradually move away from his McCarthyite past and embrace progressive positions. The other brother, Teddy, was the most progressive of the trio. Never met the guy. And I never was a big fan of political dynasties.

Over the weekend, Politico published a piece by Stephanie Murray-- Markey throws shade at Kennedy family in Senate primary brawl-- that is still probably somewhat shocking for a Massachusetts Democrat to contemplate. "In an ever more contentious battle between a septuagenarian senator and the scion of one of the nation’s best-known dynasties," wrote Murray, "Markey is calling out specific Kennedy family members by name, needling the wealth and privilege that attaches to the family name, and even drawing from the Kennedy myth in his bid to fend off his youthful challenger. At one time, that approach might have been a career-killer in Massachusetts Democratic politics. Yet Markey has employed it successfully to help narrow a double-digit polling gap with the primary just over two weeks away."

When a Boston Globe columnist drove by Markey's modest house in June to see if he was there or out of state, the Malden Democrat happened to be standing in the driveway.

"Welcome to the compound!" he quipped, a sly reference to the famous Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port.

Markey often invokes his own father, who was a milk truck driver, to draw a contrast between his own working class roots and his opponent's upbringing. The senator recently posted a black-and-white childhood photo with his parents and two brothers.

"I'm the son of a milkman and a hardworking mother. I was a commuter student who paid my way through college selling ice cream. Where I come from, no one expects to become a U.S. senator," Markey captioned the photo on Instagram.

Markey has made subtle references to the Kennedy family throughout the summer, but has ramped up his messaging in recent days. The most pointed hit came at the end of a campaign video unveiled Thursday, where he drew on a famous line from the inauguration speech of his challenger’s great uncle, President John F. Kennedy.





..."He's taking the elephant in the room and just going right at it. He's using the most identifiable characteristic of Joe Kennedy, which is his name, and trying to use it against him. It's an interesting campaign tactic and one I wouldn't have anticipated," said Steve Koczela, president of the MassINC polling group. "It puts Kennedy more on the spot to explain why he's running, and that's something he's struggled with throughout the campaign."

Markey is betting that much of the Kennedy mystique has worn off, 11 years after Ted Kennedy-- who held the state’s other Senate seat for nearly a half-century-- passed away. So far, the strategy appears to be working, particularly among younger voters who have responded to his support for the Green New Deal and his endorsement from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Koczela pointed to a MassINC poll from October 2019, which showed 70 percent of voters under age 30 had no opinion or had never heard of Markey. But a UMass Amherst poll released last week found Markey now leading that group over Kennedy with 71 percent of support.

...In their most recent debate, Markey took some of his toughest shots against Kennedy, seeking to use Kennedy's powerful family against him. Kennedy's father, former Rep. Joe Kennedy II, may put his $2.8 million in leftover campaign funds into a pro-Kennedy super PAC as a last minute boost for his son's Senate bid, and Markey sought to shame him for it.

"I'm sure your father's watching right now. Tell your father right now that you don't want money to go into a super PAC that runs negative ads," Markey said in the debate. "Just tell your twin brother and tell your father you don't want any money."

In a matter of minutes, the senator's campaign turned the debate spat into a viral video. "Free advice for Joe Kennedy. Don't rely on the old man's money," Markey captioned the video, which begins with a shot of Kennedy standing on a yacht and is set to the Hall and Oates song "Rich Girl."

The Boston Globe Is Right-- Send Ed Markey Back To The Senate

As I've said many times, Joe Kennedy III doesn't take a sip of water or tie a shoelace before considering how it will impact his eventual run for the presidency. Largely on the romanticism of his name, he was elected to an open House seat in 2012, where he hasn't been an especially impressive member. He's certainly no AOC-- not on any level. A member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, he's barely a progressive. His lifetime ProgressivePunch score is B+ (that high once he decided to challenge Markey and start voting more progressively to run the score up).

Senator Ed Markey, on the other hand, has the best ProgressivePunch voting record of anyone in the Senate; someone's got to be #1; it's Markey. You might be interested in knowing he's been endorsed by Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Zephyr Teachout and AOC-- as well as the Sunrise Movement, Our Revolution, PDA and NARAL. Bad incumbents should be relentlessly primaried. Good ones, on the other hand, should be supported. That's why Blue America has endorsed Ed Markey for reelection and for the September 1 primary. Please consider clicking on our ActBlue 2020 Senate thermometer on the right and showing him some love; he's earned it. Yesterday, the editors of the Boston Globe gave him a full-throttle endorsement, noting that he's often ahead of the curve in championing progressive causes, something no one will ever accuse Joe Kennedy of. In the House and, more recently in the Senate, Markey has been a leader-- which is different from a follower-- in "cracking down on insider trading, ensuring consumer access to wireless spectrum technologies, or helping create a broad movement to put a freeze on nuclear arms."

Decades before CNN hosted its first town hall for presidential candidates devoted to climate change, and decades before Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenage activist, was named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year,” Markey worked to make the air we breathe cleaner and to stave off the catastrophic heat waves, droughts, and rising seas poised to displace millions of people around the world.

In the 1980s, he co-authored legislation, signed by President Reagan, to make household appliances more energy-efficient, which has saved Americans billions on electric bills and spared communities and the planet the toxic, heat-trapping emissions from hundreds of coal-fired power plants. He co-led the bipartisan effort to raise fuel economy standards for cars and trucks that resulted in the 2007 law that brought forth new, innovative low-emissions and electric vehicles to the marketplace and reduced Americans’ consumption of oil. And in 2009, he and Representative Henry Waxman of California successfully moved a historic cap-and-trade bill through the US House of Representatives that would have put a price on carbon emissions and made a significant impact on planetary warming, had it not faltered in the Senate amid lackluster support from an Obama White House that prioritized health care reform.

If the senator from Malden spends a lot of time in Washington, one reason might be that he’s been busy getting legislative proposals passed to improve people’s lives. With the pandemic ravaging the American economy, Markey has pushed for policies to aid vulnerable families, especially for the millions who have lost jobs, businesses, and health insurance during the crisis. He has advocated business relief targeted at enterprises owned by women and people of color, temporary assistance for gig workers, and greater oversight of corporate bailout funding.

What distinguishes Markey’s leadership from many other Democrats, however, is that he’s pushed the country to think bigger about its response to the pandemic, whether it’s a call to fight the disease with a new kind of Manhattan Project, pushing for larger-scale stimulus, or articulating that this political moment is akin to the conditions that made possible FDR’s New Deal. In this moment, the country and the Commonwealth need leaders who won’t settle for incremental progress, who recognize the profound underlying conditions of inequality and racial injustice that exacerbate our problems, and who notice that the table is set for transformational change and can help carry it out with legislative proposals.

No problem makes that need more apparent than the climate crisis. Global carbon emissions hit a record annual high before the pandemic, temperatures are rising, and the Paris agreement is in the lurch after President Trump’s avowed withdrawal. Climate disasters cost the United States more than $525 billion over the past five years. Summer heat waves kill the old and young, Siberia burns, and seas rise in coastal cities including Boston. Leading climate scientists recently have warned us that the window to act to prevent catastrophic warming is closing.

Yet political will to address climate change is growing in the American public, and the need for significant federal stimulus to address the fallout of the pandemic presents the opportunity to remake the economy to be more energy efficient and less carbon intensive. If Democrats win back the White House and the Senate, Congress may at last pass legislation to spare society the worst humanitarian and economic costs of climate disasters. Markey is poised-- and arguably more prepared than any other politician in the US government-- to fill in the conceptual aspirations of the Green New Deal resolution that he cosponsored with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with practical policies and to get them passed in Congress.

As countless observers have pointed out, the Sept. 1 Senate primary is not a contest between candidates with competing values. Representative Joseph P. Kennedy III also cares about progressive causes, and his commitment to voting and health care access and to protecting immigrants and LGBTQ rights is laudable. A call to Joe is bound to yield insights about what’s happening on the ground in communities in the Commonwealth-- the congressman has his finger on the pulse of his constituents in the Fourth District and of Massachusetts politics. He uses his name and that trademark Kennedy charisma to help Democrats around the country win, a noble cause in an era when the GOP has made Donald Trump its flag bearer. It is clear that Kennedy has a passion for public service and the drive to have a real impact. This board looks forward to seeing what he will accomplish, whatever his next role is.

But Kennedy has not made a persuasive case for removing Markey from the Senate seat he has occupied with dignity and tenacity while achieving real results. With the window for action on the climate crisis closing, Kennedy’s candidacy looks less compelling; while he’s committed to the cause, he lacks the chops and track record that Markey would bring to a legislative effort to renew the economy with cleaner sources of energy and make communities more resilient.

Contrary to what some skeptics of Kennedy’s bid think, primary races are not inherently a waste. They can serve to usefully challenge thinking within the party and to unseat incumbents who fail to deliver for their constituents or who have become hopelessly out of touch with the needs of the nation. But Markey is not past his time; rather, his time may finally have arrived.

The crux of Kennedy’s campaign against Markey seems to come down to the question of whether a generational torch-passing is needed in the delegation this year. And here, the senator’s own words to The Globe editorial board are his best defense: “It’s not your age. It’s the age of your ideas that’s important.”

Markey’s priorities are focused not on nostalgia for America’s past but on securing a better future, whether it’s advocating access to broadband in classrooms, research on gun violence, or curbing the pollution that will change the planet for coming generations. In the protests for racial justice sweeping the country, Markey sees echoes of past social movements, a chance to listen and have the politics of the streets shape the politics on Capitol Hill.

That’s not out of touch; it’s tuned in to what the next generation is demanding. And to do right by them, it’s urgent to keep Ed Markey in the game.

During last Sunday debate, Kennedy was asked why he joined the notoriously racist join a famously racist Kappa Alpha fraternity, which worships Robert E. Lee (who they explicitly acknowledge as their "Spiritual Founder") and why it took him until last month-- 2 decades after the fact-- to disassociate himself from it. He admitted he wishes he hadn't joined but that doesn't answer the question. He always claims that the Stanford chapter had nothing to do with the national organization, which just isn't true. The frat's literature, rituals and traditions are filled with reverence for the Confederacy and the Old South and for racism. The chapters-- albeit before Joe K III joined-- used to call themselves Klans, although we're not talking ancient history here. When the first black students to integrate the University of Georgia (1961) arrived on campus, the Alpha Kappa Klan flew the Confederate flag at half mast. It wasn't until 2001 that the Alpha Kappas stopped flying the Confederate flag.

This week, Kennedy's campaign accused Markey of not including the towns of Stoughton, Blackstone, Dana, Dudley, Enfield, and Prescott on a campaign map and insisting "they do not exist in Markey's Massachusetts. Well, Dana, Enfield and Prescot actually don't exist in anyone's Massachusetts. They were flooded to make way for the Quabbin Reservoir in the 1930s. I guess if he doesn't remember the racism of his college frat, who could expect him to know not to schedule any rallies in Dana, Enfield and Prescot.

Joe Kennedy III's Senate Race-- A Picture Of Dynastic Entitlement

Joe Kennedy, who's nearly 40, was elected to Congress in 2012 when Barney Frank retired. His dad, Joe Kennedy II was RFK's son and a congressman from the Boston district currently represented by Ayanna Pressley. Joe III's biggest accomplishments are being RFK's grandson and JFK's gran nephew. His great-grandmother, Rose Kennedy, was the daughter of John Fitzgerald, who was both a mayor of Boston and another U.S. congressman. Since arriving in Congress in 2013, he's earned a "B" from ProgressivePunch, making him the 5th best of the Massachusetts members-- behind Ayanna Pressley, Katherine Clark, Jim McGovern and Lori Trahan, all of whom have earned "A"s. It's worth noting that Ed Markey, who he has decided to run against has an A, not just an A, but the highest A in the Senate, stronger than Elizabeth Warren and Bernie.

Yesterday, Kennedy made the announcement that everyone knew was coming. He's running against Markey. There's no case he can make against Markey. He's running because he's a entitled rich political celebrity with a glittery name. He's accomplished virtually nothing in Congress. Last cycle, as a regional vice chair for the DCCC is did an OK job, not a terrible as invisible do-nothings Betty McCollum and Don McEachin but nothing like what super-star Ted Lieu was able-- by dint of hard work-- was able to do. Joe III never did any substantial work. Hereditary rich people rarely do. His announcement speech yesterday was fine.

“Donald Trump has forced a long overdue reckoning in America, and how we respond will say everything about who we are,” Kennedy said. “We have to take on the broken system that gave rise to him in the first place-- the outdated structures and old rules, the everyday oppressions and injustices that hold our people back.”

...Asked how he differs from Markey, Kennedy ticked off a series of issues he supports including getting political action committee money out of politics, creating term limits for Supreme Court justices and abolishing the Electoral College. But he declined to criticize Markey directly.

“Senator Markey is a good man,” he said. “This is going to be a tough race.”

Markey also supports abolishing the Electoral College and creating term limits for Supreme Court justices.

On Saturday, the senator challenged those running against him, including Kennedy, to a climate change debate in November. Markey sees the fight against climate change and his push for the Green New Deal as signature issues in his re-election campaign.

“I was very disappointed at the Democratic National Committee’s refusal to hold a debate on climate change for our presidential candidates,” Markey said in a video released Saturday morning. “So today I’m challenging Congressman Joe Kennedy, Shannon Liss-Riordan and Steve Pemberton to a climate change debate, and to do it very soon.”

Liss-Riordan, a workers’ rights lawyer, and Pemberton, a former senior executive at Walgreens, are also challenging Markey.

Some Democratic activists have said they’re worried that a Senate primary between two high-profile Democrats could drain money and resources away from the party’s top priority: defeating President Donald Trump.

Kennedy brushed aside those concerns.

“Engaging more people in that process, bringing more voices to the table, fighting back against that-- how is that a bad thing?” Kennedy said. “People that are trying to say that this is going to divert resources-- I just don’t think that’s the case.”

First elected to Congress in 2012, Kennedy has tried to position himself as more of a pragmatist than those on the left of his party.

Nevertheless, Kennedy has adopted many of the causes driving the party’s liberal wing. He has called for Congress to initiate impeachment efforts against Trump and has backed a “Medicare for All” bill in the House. He has also said he supports the Green New Deal initiative to combat climate change, something Markey is championing along with Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York-- who has endorsed Markey.

Given his political pedigree , Kennedy has been seen as a rising star in the party. In 2018, he was tapped to deliver the Democratic response to Trump’s State of the Union address.

A Kennedy-Markey contest will put more than a few high-profile Democrats in an awkward position, most notably Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the White House hopeful from Massachusetts.

Warren has worked with Markey in the Senate and taught Kennedy at Harvard Law School. She formally endorsed Markey before Kennedy floated the idea of a challenge to Markey.

Markey, who joined thousands of young climate change activists who rallied in Boston on Friday as part of a global, youth-led day of environmental action, has the backing of many environmental activists.

One of those groups-- Environment Massachusetts-- has vowed to raise $5 million to help Markey win re-election.

“We are lucky to have one of the nation’s strongest climate champions, Ed Markey, representing Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate,” Ben Hellerstein, state director for Environment Massachusetts, said in a prepared statement, explaining that voters need to understand Markey’s record on renewable energy, clean water, clean air and the protection of public lands.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

We are at war, a cyberwar with Russia. And Trump and McConnell are still doing nothing about this war; continuing their coverup, all in hopes of even more and deeper Russian infiltration of our electoral process in 2020. The Democrats? Mr. Nicey-Nice President Obama went to McConnell with all the evidence that was needed back in 2016 when he should have given an address to the nation as soon as McConnell made his true colors known. Obama might as well have gone and given the evidence to the Russian embassy.

The rest of the Democrats, 3 years later? They continue to play nice when, if they weren't so willing to abdicate their constitutional duties, they should be screaming what Joe Kennedy, as close to a lone voice of patriotism as possible, said from the rooftops. They should be screaming bloody murder on our behalf but our behalf as a nation means nothing to them compared to their wanting to keep their cushy dialing for dollars jobs. The media? They gave no notice to the truth that Joe Kennedy spoke whatsoever. The horror of the truth just doesn't fit their corporatista agenda. For them, it's all about the advertising revenue from Big Pharma, Big Oil, trash fast food (the kind their boy Trump loves), and car companies. Like Washington, the media companies are bought and sold. Trump himself is brzenly and, of course, obnoxiously, flaunting his dictator agenda in our faces, as he blatantly showed when he recently boasted, like the banana republic dictator he now is, that he spoke with his master Vladimir Putin the other day and didn't even bring the subject up. That was deliberate tacit encouragement for Putin to go further, of course. No code necessary.

Imagine if we had given no response to Japan's attack on us at Pearl Harbor. Los Angeles and San Francisco would have been next. That's the kind of thing that's coming, and we owe it all to a bunch of suit-wearing do-nothing goons in Washington.

We used to prosecute, convict and hang traitors.

Trump Crashes The Stock Market-- Next Comes The Economy

Have you known many people like Trump? Hustlers and grifters like him are a dime a dozen in New York. I once worked for one who was a firm believer that if you went around hissing your poison in enough peoples' ears, you would create a new reality of your own. Trump tried it Tuesday with his China trade-war bullshit (above)-- but all he created was the 4th biggest stock market collapse in U.S. history, down 799 points. The fucking orange orangoutang's tweets caused the Nasdaq composite to drop 3%, the S&P 500 and the Dow to each lose 2.5%. Small caps took the hardest hit as the Russell 2000 slumped 3.3%. The four biggest point drops in U.S. history have all occurred under Señor Trumpanzee. Whether you think of him as Pig Man or Tariff Man, "Global markets," as the Washington Post noted Tuesday, "demand consistency and reliability; Trump delivers neither. Instead, he makes knee-jerk announcements that surprise investors, lawmakers and even some of his own aides and advisers, who sometimes find themselves reversing course," depending on the asshole’s whims.

The next day, The Post reported that "three days after Trump emerged from his dinner with Xi touting an 'incredible' deal, U.S. and Chinese officials were offering different accounts of whether there was a 90-day deadline for progress in new trade talks, the schedule for China to increase its purchases of American farm and industrial products, and Beijing’s plans to reduce or eliminate specific tariffs." China's leaders are too wily and well-informed to buy into Trump's simplistic gaslighting.

The golden pig was back on the royal twitter machine early Wednesday morning, apparently hoping against hope for a better outcome:

Chuck Todd and Co. wondered if Trump can get out from under the trade crisis he created, reminding readers that "it’s a crisis that he ultimately might not be able to solve, because he doesn’t understand that tariffs mean higher prices for American business and consumers." There's a lot the failed businessman in the Oval Office doesn't understand-- like why the federal deficit is out of control, not despite his economic policies, but because of them. Scott Horsley, for NPR, two months ago:

The federal deficit ballooned to $779 billion in the just-ended fiscal year-- a remarkable tide of red ink for a country not mired in recession or war.

The government is expected to borrow more than a trillion dollars in the coming year, in part to make up for tax receipts that have been slashed by GOP tax cuts.

Corporate tax collections fell by 31 percent in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, despite robust corporate profits. That's hardly surprising after lawmakers cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21.

Income taxes withheld from individuals grew by 1 percent. Overall tax receipts were flat. As a share of the economy, tax receipts shrank to 16.5 percent of GDP, from 17.2 percent the previous year.

Trump hasn't a clue what's going on, blames his own Fed chairman for increasing interest rates and is depending on the old right-wing trope-- that "accelerating economic growth will eventually help fill the deficit hole"-- though that never does work and today shows no evidence on any kind of exception. One of Trump's moron economic advisors, Mike Mulvaney, insists "This fiscal picture is a blunt warning to Congress of the dire consequences of irresponsible and unnecessary spending," while McConnell, lying his ass off, Trump style, blamed the deficits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Horsley reported that "McConnell's comments drew a swift rebuke from the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who blamed the rising deficit on Republicans' "tax cut for the rich. To now suggest cutting earned middle-class programs like Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid as the only fiscally responsible solution to solve the debt problem is nothing short of gaslighting."

The fiscal year-end report from the Treasury Department was broadly in line with White House and Congressional projections. Although White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow falsely claimed in June that the deficit was coming down, the trend toward rising red ink was widely anticipated.

"As expected, recent tax cuts and spending increases-- all put on the national credit card-- are making a bad problem even worse," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Growing deficits, coupled with rising interest rates, will increasingly put pressure on other government spending priorities. MacGuineas notes that interest payments jumped 24 percent in the last 12 months, to $325 billion.

"Those elected to Congress this year will face stark and difficult choices to put the debt on a downward path and protect our nation's social programs from insolvency," MacGuineas said. "It's no longer a problem for the future."

Two more perspectives on this-- one from the Daily Beast and one from Joe Kennedy III. Asawin Suebsaeng and Lachlan Markay wrote that Trump's advisors have been whining to him about the national debt since the campaign but that souces close to the treacherous imbecile "say he has repeatedly shrugged it off, asserting-- the classic sociopath that he is-- that he doesn’t have to worry about the money owed to America’s creditors "because he won’t be around to shoulder the blame when it becomes even more untenable."

Kennedy, currently toying with a presidential run (yawn)-- I doubt he'll do it-- is urging fellow Dems in Congress to adopt some bullshit he's calling "moral capitalism," a pointed slam against both Trump and-- more to the point-- Bernie as a way of putting himself in the comfy political center even if his feel-good approach solves nothing at all.

Kennedy said the push is a rebuke to what he describes as the “trickle-down, feed-the-top, if-you’re-struggling-try-harder narrative” of conservatives.

It’s a narrative he says President Donald Trump has sharpened to divide Americans, many of whom share similar economic worries despite holding different political views.

“His is a country of bitter rivalry between fellow citizens, forced to endlessly spar over the scraps of our system,” Kennedy said Monday before a regional business association in Boston. “My wages can’t grow unless your food stamps go. Your medical bills can’t fall unless my insurance gets taken way. So Americans spend their days fighting each other over economic crumbs - while our system quietly hand delivers the entire pie to those at the top.”

Kennedy, without naming names, also chided the extremes on the liberal end of the political spectrum, which he said have failed to effectively counter Trump’s zero-sum game world view.

“For years, the left has failed to offer a competing-- compelling-- economic vision,” Kennedy said. “We’ll have to do more than tax the rich to meet our needs in infrastructure, childcare, health care, college and climate change.”

Stephanie Kelton, the most important economist in America, took a look at Kennedy's proposal and saw right through it. "He twice indicts the system, which is of course capitalism," she told me. "But it’s a certain kind of capitalism. It reminds me a little bit of Hyman Minsky, one of the most important economists of the 20th century. Minsky famously argued that there are as many varieties of capitalism as Heinz has pickles-- at least 57."

"Capitalism performed best, Minsky taught us, when we were growing the welfare state-- i.e. after WWII through the 1960s. We had the longest peacetime recovery in U.S. history, median incomes rose, the distribution of income was better skewed in favor of the bottom 90%, the banking system was robust, and we avoided any serious financial crisis. But then we transitioned away from 'welfare capitalism' to 'money-manager capitalism.' Reagan gave us trickle-down economics, we saw the decline of unions, deregulation became the order of the day, the welfare state was under attack, the working class lost ground, the top began to runaway with a larger share of the income and wealth, and we had the Savings & Loan crisis. Today, we've got 'finance capitalism.’ An extension of the Reagan dynamics with a massive explosion of the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate). Recessions are longer and more protracted, and the policy response tends to focus on recovering conditions on Wall St. without much attention or help for Main St. So, yes, the system is not serving the majority of working people very well. Is a kinder, gentler capitalism the answer? And what, exactly, would that look like? The Congressman doesn’t tell us.

"Kennedy is right to point out that we are trapped in a policy framework that treats the federal budget as a zero-sum game. It’s the old guns vs. butter dilemma, where the only way to put more resources into education or infrastructure, e.g., is to pull some resources from defense. So what is his solution? He mentions taxes, but we don’t know what he’s thinking. He implies that we can’t get build a moral capitalism simply by taxing the rich. I agree! He says we need a new economic vision, but he doesn’t do much more than call for a rejection of trickle-down economics. What we need is to reject the fiscal straightjacket that leads to a too-timid use of the federal budget so that we can fund the programs we value. A moral capitalism will require the deployment of federal funds-- public money-- to meet the needs he describes: infrastructure, childcare, health care, college, and climate change.

"Until we do that, all we have is a feel-good exercise in our moral superiority over the Republicans."

Who Comes After Pelosi? Almost Certainly Someone Worse-- And Whose Fault Is That?

Did you know the Speaker of the House doesn't even have to be a member of the House, let alone someone who has grown old and decrepit-- not to mention corrupt-- there? I've been trying to persuade some of my friends in Congress to work towards throwing out the seniority system, not just for Speaker and leadership roles, but for everything. It's almost like the House Dems are cemented into place by a version of the Peter Principle. When lo-info voters in WA-05 defeated Tom Foley in 1994 some thought his opponent, George Nethercutt, would become Speaker and never imagined they were putting Georgia bomb-thrower Newt Gingrich into that role. Gingrich, though, like Ryan today, did not slowly rise in the ranks the way Foley had. Foley, who had been first elected to Congress in 1965 became House Majority whip in 1981, House Majority Leader in 1987 and then Speaker in 1989. Gingrich was an interloper. He was elected to Congress in 1978, forced his way into the Minority Whip position in 1989 and became Speaker in 1995. Pelosi had been elected to Congress in 1986, became Minority Whip in 2002, Minority Leader in 2003 and Speaker in 2007. Since losing the House in 2010, she's been Minority Leader. She'll be 78 in a few weeks. Her 2nd in command, Steny Hoyer, will be 79 in June.

The House Democratic caucus is like a geriatric ward. It doesn't have to be like that. Ted Lieu was elected to Congress in 2014. Can you imagine him as Speaker? Before Congress he was in the California state Senate and before that in the Assembly. He was-- still is-- an Air Force Colonel. He's not on the leadership path, which, conventionally is thought to include doddering K Street whore Steny Hoyer and Wall Street whore Joe Crowley, who's never been in a contested election (or primary) in his life. (At least Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been eliminated from contention after she was caught up in several scandals-- whew!)

And I'm not here to make a case for Lieu per se, although he'd be my top pick if I had a vote. There are several amazing members of the House with fantastic leadership skills, who are considered too "young" (too unsullied by the system) to be seriously considered: Pramila Jayapal (WA), Mark Pocan (WI), Jamie Raskin (MD), Ro Khanna (CA)...

Yesterday a couple of Politico reporters decided to imagine what would happen if Team Pelosi manages to lose the Midterms again and Pelosi is finally forced out, as she should have been in 2010. They forsee her leaving but not the even worse rotgut members of her leadership team. Dramatically, they wrote that "A stealthy discussion is already underway within the Democratic Caucus, particularly among members whose only experience in Congress is in the minority. Assuming Pelosi either leaves on her own or is pressured to step down, her exit would trigger a messy battle between the party’s old guard, led by House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and the party’s younger members, represented by House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley (D-NY). It’s a generational showdown that's been put off for years, but one that Democrats might not be able to be avoid much longer." Crowley, formerly the head of the New Dems and the Republican wing the Democratic Party may be a relatively spry 56, but he's the most blatantly corrupt member of the congressional caucus, the most conservative in the leadership and the least intelligent, none which matters at all in selecting leaders among House Democrats. And speaking of corrupt members of the House, Bresnahan and Caygle went straight to doddering jailbait Alcee Hastings (D-Payday Lenders) for his outlook: "It will be an intraparty war. That's what you can expect," predicting a "mass exodus" of Democrats if they don't win the House in November. "That's at the highest levels of leadership and at the committee level."

That sounds attractive. "A shakeup at the top of the Democratic Caucus is also likely to set off a scramble further down the leadership chain as members clamor for spots that haven’t been open, or whose occupants have been hand-picked by Pelosi-- for years." Unfortunately, progressives inside the caucus are disorganized and weak and the New Dems are the dominant role. They would take over the whole kit and caboodle. The most ambitious young members are all conservatives, any of them absolutely horrible: Tim Ryan, Ann Rice, Seth Moulton, Cheri Bustos, Jim Himes, Denny Heck, Adam Schiff, Joaquin Castro... each one rated "F" by ProgressivePunch-- except Castro and Schiff, each of whom has a "D."

The ongoing conversations about the future of the party’s leadership come as members set off Wednesday for their retreat on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, a three-day confab in which Crowley, as caucus chairman, will play a prominent role, alongside Pelosi and Hoyer.

In interviews with more than two dozen Democratic lawmakers and aides, most on the condition of anonymity in order to freely discuss sensitive caucus dynamics, a clear divide emerged. Most of those interviewed agreed Pelosi would have to step down or face a certain-- and very credible-- challenge for her post.

Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), a close Pelosi ally who occupies the third rung in party leadership, also faces questions about his future. Many Democrats expect him to leave when Pelosi exits. As the most prominent African-American member of the Democratic Caucus, Clyburn has significant pull among the women and minorities, who make up more than half the caucus.

Pelosi’s allies maintain that if or when she leaves is up to her, noting that she generally does not telegraph her political moves.

“Leader Pelosi is singularly focused on winning back the House for Democrats. The leader is not here on a shift, but on a mission,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said.

But if Pelosi goes, lawmakers say the race for the top slot would come down to a choice between Hoyer and Crowley.

Hoyer's faction of supporters point to the stability he’d bring after more than 15 years in the deputy spot. These Democrats feel that Hoyer has more than paid his dues and deserves the brass ring.

That's exactly the opposite of what the House Democraps need-- more of the same... but worse. "Hoyer," they pointed out, "has deep roots within the caucus, is known for giving new members opportunities through his whip operation and building relationships that go back years, important bona fides for anyone who wants to be elected leader. Unlike Pelosi, who has long been vilified by Republicans for what they call her “out of touch San Francisco values,” Hoyer can campaign in nearly any district, his allies point out. And Hoyer has done the political work, including hundreds of fundraisers, that come with the party leader post. Members remember those debts." Problem: he mostly campaigns for corrupt conservatives who often lose and make monkeys of themselves, like Tim Mahoney (FL), Tim Holden (PA), Al Wynn (MD), Wasserman Schultz (FL) and, most recently, Jason Crow, an attorney who spent his career defending payday lenders against the people they ripped off. “Obviously there’s no heir apparent here as far as of a line of succession is concerned,” said one Democrat who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “Steny is beloved within the caucus, and he’s a member’s member and has been terrific. But there’s also generational rumblings going on, too.” He gives everyone money he gets from corporate interests and lobbyists most members are embarrassed to take directly.

On the other side, lawmakers in the change camp argue that replacing one longtime leader with another, both in their late 70s, isn’t going to help Democrats win back the majority. If Democrats fail to take the House, they say, it would be time for a wholesale change at the top-- including Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn.

While several members said they believe Crowley would make a run for the top post, whether against Pelosi or Hoyer, the New York Democrat wasn’t ready to declare his candidacy when approached by Politico.

“I believe in the wisdom of the caucus,” Crowley said when asked whether he would run for minority leader if Democrats lose the House.

Some Democrats say the party should consider options beyond Hoyer or Crowley if they fail to win in November. They say there may be a push to have a person of color lead the caucus, instead of choosing between two white men who are similar in their politics, they said.

But as chairman of the Democratic Caucus, a prominent position just below the top three leaders, Crowley is in the best position to challenge Hoyer in November.

“I think some leaders pushing 80 think they are the future, and it’s laughable. And I think they are in for a big surprise, because most of us are ready for a real change and new leadership,” said another House Democrat, referring to Hoyer's age. He described that sentiment as “deep and widespread.”

“The issue is not even about personalities. It’s about the future versus the past.”

Exactly... and that takes us back to people like Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Mark Pocan... The future is not just about age; it's also about outlook. Who, for example, aggressively backs policies attractive to millennials and who is rooted in the '70s and '80s the politics of defensive fear? Which members have something to offer young voters aside from wanting to take a next step in their career trajectory?

Meanwhile Chris Lehmann addressed one member who everyone would be thinking of in a House leadership role if he weren't already on Senate and President track, Joe "Born This Way" Kennedy III: The Reboot of the Elites-- "Democrats’ reflex: when they go low, we go upper crust." Lehmann doesn't think the party knows what it's doing. Yes, welcome to the party.

Handed a golden opportunity to deliver a forward-looking message in response to a lackluster state of the union address by the least popular first-term president in modern history, lead strategists and consultants for our notional party of the people did what they always do: they coughed up the heir to an exhausted liberal-managerial brand, to assure a vast nationwide viewing audience that theirs is the American political franchise terminally resistant to new ideas.

Not that Massachusetts Rep. Joseph Kennedy III’s rhetoric or broad policy dictums were all that objectionable on their own terms. It’s good, and necessary, to sound a note of inclusion and compassion in the face of the racist slanders and authoritarian commands of Trumpism-- and Kennedy was capable enough in delivering that very anodyne message and hitting his capaciously designated mark.

No, the designation of a third-generation scion of an insular dynastic clan as a “rising star” of the opposition party represents a deeper structural disorder—one that’s disfigured the Democrats’ anemic national strategizing for the better part of a generation. For the keepers of liberal consensus to rally to a global mood of populist discontent with a political brand name steeped in the New Frontier social mythology of the mid-twentieth-century is like trying to extinguish a prairie fire with a series of Scotch and gin shipments. It’s also to indulge a key Democratic myth that has long passed its plausible sell-by date: that as the party of our new digital managerial class, the Democrats are the country’s true and proper keepers of the credentials for legitimate political leadership.

In this context, the misguided selection of Kennedy as the future-of-the-party respondent to President Trump’s State of the Union speech last week is more than a passing one-off tactical error. It represents, rather, a full-blown social philosophy, one that carelessly assigns power on the basis of socio-economic networking, and imagines its lead exponents as the only body of gatekeepers who can channel populist discontent into reasoned social deference. Among other things, the leadership-by-dynastic-prerogative model is a poor look for a party that’s desperately trying to convey a unified message of social inclusion.

...[F]or a party locked out of the meaningful exercise of power in virtually every level of government, a sudden onrush of inexperienced and ideological candidates with a shot at actually gaining power is a rather good problem to have. It’s particularly so, in view of the stubborn obstacles to activist fundraising and participation that the Democratic Party’s leadership caste has deliberately erected to discourage non-establishment candidacies that threaten the party’s dominant, bought-out business model. But that is to suppose that, for this cohort of D.C. apparatchik, ideology and substantive governance might, you know, matter.

...[O]ne of the most tirelessly flogged talking points among the Clinton wing of party sachems is that Sanders has no purchase on the party’s legitimate attention because the man is actually not a Democrat at all, but an independent caucusing with the party. In other words, like these spittle-flecked insurgent candidates in the 2018 cycle, Bernie Sanders simply lacks the proper credentials to be taken seriously. Greeting a grassroots insurgency among energized young voters with this sort of door-slamming petulance is very much like appointing Woody Allen as the headmaster of a girls’ academy: a willful subordination of urgent ends to complacent means that verges on criminal malpractice.

This mind-bendingly myopic and insular response to populist dissent is how the Democrats’ supremely cynical GOP opponents were able to carry off the Big Lie of nominating and electing a tax-cutting billionaire populist to the presidency. Democrats have increasingly come to envision a political system that delivers power on the basis of professional status, which in turn all but guarantees that ardent neoliberals tend overwhelmingly to come into their own political convictions much as Joseph Kennedy III has: as a matter of class inheritance.

And just as in our esteemed Ivy League universities, all the jargon of meritocratic achievement that accompanies this brand of social power cedes in a heartbeat to the familiar specter of legacy admissions-- or a dynastic political brand, as the case may be. In both academia and politics, the wifty rhetoric of the careful, high-professional modulation of reason and merit disguises the bald exercise of privilege for privilege’s sake.

To put things mildly, things were not ever thus in the Democratic Party. The Democrats’ great modern founder, Franklin Roosevelt, was indeed a proud traitor to an aristocratic governing legacy-- and went on to lay the groundwork for both widely distributed middle-class prosperity in America and majoritarian Democratic governance for the better part of forty years. While Roosevelt himself famously attended Harvard in the company of his doting mother, his successor in office, Harry Truman, was the last American president to rule without benefit of a college diploma. Just imagine the righteous conniptions that would trigger among today’s Democratic governing caste, and their pious enablers at the Brookings Institution.