Center-Right Country? Nope

 

In his misguided column today, Charlie Cook asked why Democrats couldn't ride the blue wave. It might help if he contemplated the difference between an anti-red (or, in this case, anti-Trump) wave and a blue wave. The Democrats offered nothing other than "Yeah, we suck but Trump is really dangerous and sucks more than we do." Cook noted that even while Señor Trumpanzee "became only the fourth elected incumbent in the last century to lose, not one of the 166 Republicans seeking reelection to the House of Representatives has lost. Meanwhile, at least nine of the 220 Democratic incumbents running to retain their current seats lost, with five more in races that have not yet been called. The overall House outcome looks likely to be a net gain for Republicans of about eight seats."

So, what happened to the Democratic wave, if there ever was one?

It is difficult for me to fathom that so many polls, conducted by dozens of pollsters from both parties using different methodologies, could all be wrong, and in the same direction.

In my judgment, there was a blue wave building, a pretty big one, then something happened, like a fish getting spooked before taking a bite out of a lure. Too many of the most experienced political operatives in both parties could see it coming. My guess is that while a majority, albeit a small one, wanted to unseat Trump, they got skittish about giving Democrats unified control. Was the electorate willing to put Biden in the driver’s seat, but not give him the full tank of gas and a credit card that a Democrat-controlled Congress would provide?

Did the label of “socialist” finally give enough swing voters cause for hesitation? What about charges that Democrats were going to push Medicare-for-all, or pack the Court? What about questions of exactly what would be in a Green New Deal and what would it do to jobs during a fragile economy? Was there a fear that Democrats would or could not keep law and order, given the “Defund the Police” movement?

This argument got some reinforcement when Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Democracy Corps, a group he founded decades ago with James Carville, conducted a 2,000-person phone sample in 16 battleground states from Oct. 31 to Nov. 4. Greenberg’s argument, based on that study, was: “The big story is Donald Trump led an incendiary, race-laden working-class revolt against the elites, fueled by attacks on defunding the police, ads with Black urban violence and his demand for law and order that cost Democrats dearly in rural areas, with older voters and white working-class men, some GOP defectors, some suburban voters, and ... an unprecedented rush of white working-class voters in the blue wall states. Trump pushed his white working-class men’s vote up 7 points at the end to match the support he got in 2016 and pushed up his rural vote 14 points to exceed it.”

Cook's conclusion is both incorrect and exactly what you would expect from him: "This is a center-right country, one that may have been ready to abandon the Trump experiment, but the more they thought about it, were not so sure about going all in for Democrats." The losses in the Democratic Party were all center-right Democrats who oppose "socialism!!!" and Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal, not to mention Defund the Police and all the other crap Cook and conservative commentators are squawking about. The losers were Blue Dogs and New Dems-- many in overwhelmingly Republican districts that should never have flipped in 2018 in the first place; they're back where they belong now.

In his USAToday OpEd this week, Bernie wrote that "corporate Democrats are attacking so-called far-left policies like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal for election defeats in the House and the Senate. They are dead wrong... [S]upporting universal health care during a pandemic and enacting major investments in renewable energy as we face the existential threat to our planet from climate change is not just good public policy. It also is good politics. According to an exit poll from Fox News, no bastion of socialism, 72% of voters favored the change “to a government-run health care plan” and 70% of voters supported “increasing government spending on green and renewable energy.”

The lesson is not to abandon popular policies like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, living wage jobs, criminal justice reform and universal child care, but to enact an agenda that speaks to the economic desperation being felt by the working class-- Black, white, Latino, Asian American and Native American. People are hurting, and they are crying out for help. We must respond.

...The American people are sick and tired of seeing billionaires and Wall Street become much richer, while veterans sleep out on the streets, our infrastructure crumbles and young people leave school deeply in debt.

They want a government that works for all, not just the few. That’s the right thing to do, that’s the moral thing to do and, for the Democratic Party, that is the way to win elections.

If only there was a school for would-be politicians to learn how to persuade people to think about policy and prioritize that when casting ballots. If there were such a school, Jonathan Tasini would be a dean. This morning his latest Working Life newsletter flew right in the face of Cook's nonsense: Tax Hikes In Arizona More Popular Than Biden. He wrote that though Biden narrowly (49.41% to 49.07%) won Arizona, by almost a 10-1 margin, voters were much more eager to hike taxes than vote for him. "For a damn good reason: to raise almost $1 billion to pay teachers and other education workers a bit more, not to mention reduce class size and give kids a decent place to try to learn. Surprise, not surprise. Turns out voters love teachers more than politicians… who knew? ... This is just another example of the point I made in yesterday’s post about Florida’s wildly popular ballot initiative to hike the state minimum wage to $15-an-hour by 2026: progressive ideas win if you get beyond the pointless debate about 'progressive versus centrist' and focus on talking to people about dollars-and-cents in their pocket books, or, community-wide, showing quite clearly the benefit of taxes… and, generally speaking, people do see a benefit in good schools and paying teachers a living wage."

Back in Arizona, Biden won by 11,434 votes. Proposition 208 won with a margin just shy of 113,000 votes, okaying a 3.5% surcharge only on the wealthiest taxpayers: individuals making $250,000 and up and couples earning $500,000 or more. Prop 207, to legalize marijuana won by an even bigger margin-- 1,953,997 (60%) to 1,300,856 (40%). You may be noticing that Prop 207 received more positive votes than either Trump or Biden. So when you hear some establishment relic like Charlie Cook pontificating about the U.S. being a center-right country... change the channel. Have you watched all 7 seasons of The Blacklist? I recommend it highly. In fact, the new season kicks off tonight!

Trump Is Too Low A Bar To Measure Anything... Ever. Biden Needs To Measure Himself Against FDR

 

Except for the friends who didn't vote, I'm the only one of my friends who didn't vote for Biden. I didn't argue with them or criticize them or even feel any negativity towards them. The Orange Fascist Menace had to be defeated and they did what I just could not bring myself to do. Now however, and I bet you're noticing it too, sane progressives are trying to turn a holding-your-nose vote into a mental exercise that turns Biden into our hero. Please get over that fast if it's infecting you. He isn't. He's another president, likely to do more bad than good-- sure better than Trump, but as I always tell Nicole Sandler and David Feldman on their radio shows: a pile of runny diarrhea is better than Trump. The bar is too low to be meaningful.

Take the old video above, for example. I had hoped I'd never have to use it again... but knew I would be forced sooner or later. It's sooner and here he goes, following the instincts he's honed for more decades than many of us have been on earth.

"Lobbyists," he began, "aren't bad people." He's wrong; they are. And that includes the members of his own family and inner circle who have used their connections to make fortunes as lobbyists. He should stay the hell away from lobbyists. But, who could imagine Joe Biden staying away from lobbyists. He'd rather throw away good will with the American people-- who hate lobbyists more than they hate politicians-- than keep lobbyists at arm's length.

Today, Wall Street Journal reporters Chad Day and Andrew Restuccia wrote that Biden had already granted waivers to lobbyists so they can serve on his transition team, jeopardizing the natural goodwill millions of Americans feel towards a new president. What an idiot! And what an idiot Ron Klain must be to have allowed Biden to step into that pile of Trump. Day and Restuccia wrote that at least 40 people serving on Biden’s transition team are or were once registered lobbyists. The promise was that his administration would limit the corrupt influence of lobbyists, but-- exactly like the system Trump set up to replace the swamp with a cesspool, Biden's ethics rules "don’t impose a blanket ban on lobbyists, but they require individuals who are registered lobbyists, or have registered as lobbyists within the past year, to get approval from the transition’s general counsel to serve on the team."

Biden announced over 500 members of his transition team, which is tasked with implementing his "policy agenda, working with career government staffers to get up to speed on key issues and eventually embedding in agencies ahead of the inauguration. Five people on the teams-- Andrea Delgado, who is currently registered as a lobbyist for the United Farm Workers Foundation; Celeste Drake, who is currently registered as a lobbyist for the Directors Guild of America; Josh Nassar, who is currently registered as a lobbyist for the United Auto Workers; LaQuita Honeysucker, who was registered as a lobbyist for the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union until earlier this year; and Scott Frey, who was registered as a lobbyist for the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees until earlier this year-- are currently registered as lobbyists or were registered within the last year... All five received waivers to serve on the agency review teams."

A statement from the transition team could have easily have come from the Trump Regime:

"Agency review team members are well-respected in their fields and for their extensive experience in the federal agencies they review. We have granted a limited number of authorizations...

The same official admitted that other transition officials have also received waivers, but refused to tell Day and Restuccia their names of even how many of them there are. The Journal also "identified 35 people who had registered as lobbyists prior to this year and who do not need special approval to work on the transition. Those individuals lobbied for a range of companies, unions and advocacy groups-- from BP America, Inc. and a company that owns private prisons to the Environmental Defense Fund and the American Federation of Teachers. Some haven’t lobbied for more than a decade, while others lobbied in recent years." I wonder what the fella from BP is working on.

Political candidates of both parties have grappled with what role former lobbyists should play in their campaigns and administrations. President Trump came under criticism in 2016 for tapping lobbyists to work on his transition team, and he later installed them in senior positions at many federal agencies. During his 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump had pledged to “drain the swamp” in Washington.

A analysis by ProPublica and the Columbia Journalism School [almost a year old] in 2019 found more than 280 lobbyists had served in positions in the Trump administration.

My old friend, Jonathan Tasini, a labor-oriented podcaster and author, is starting a newsletter, Working Life, which you can find here. This afternoon he launched it with an assertion that Biden would have won Florida if he had run as a populist. He contends that Floridians are looking for candidates who want to put more money in peoples’ pockets, makes it possible for people to make a decent living and narrow the inequality gap. "What they want to see is simple: is what you are proposing going to help me pay the bills?"

What really grabbed my attention in the Florida results was a relatively unremarked upon, at least nationally, Florida victory-- the passage of Amendment 2, which will raise the state minimum wage to $15-an-hour by 2026. (Side point for now: keep in mind that $15-an-hour, though a huge leap above the putrid federal minimum wage of $7.25-an-hour, is still below what the minimum wage, federal or state, should be... at least $20-$22-an hour).

The vote on the initiative was overwhelming: 6,377,444 in favor (60.8 percent) and 4,111,094 opposed (39.2 percent) [votes are as of November 11th 2020]. That is a winning margin of over 2.2 million votes.

The presidential election results: Trump 5,658,847 (51.2 percent) versus Biden 5,284,453 (47.9 percent). That is a winning margin of just 374,000 plus votes out of more than 10.9 million votes.

I decided to look county-by-county at the Florida Trump vs. Biden race compared to the Yes-No vote on Amendment 2. In virtually every county, Amendment 2 outperformed Biden’s numbers-- in some cases, by a lot (20-70 percent)-- and that was true in counties that voted for Trump and even in counties where Amendment 2 lost but still tallied more votes than Biden.

Consider these examples, looking at the total votes cast and the percent differences, and the “under-performance” of Biden versus Amendment 2:

Miami Dade County

• Biden: 617,201 (53.4 percent)
• Trump: 532,409 (46.1 percent)

Amendment 2—

• Yes: 751,866 (70.55 percent)
• No: 313,922 (29.45 percent)

[Biden “under-performance”: 134,665]

Palm Beach County

• Biden: 429,856 (56 %)
• Trump: 332, 760 (43.4 %)

Amendment 2—

• Yes: 503,661 (68.61%)
• No: 230,457 (31.39%)

[Biden “under-performance”: 73,805]

Broward County

• Biden: 617,689 (64.6 %)
• Trump: 332, 960 (34.8 %)

Amendment 2—

• Yes: 666,522 (75.24%)
• No: 219,328 (24.76%)

[Biden “under-performance”: 48,833]

Duval County

• Biden: 251,952 (51.2 %)
• Trump: 233,316 (47.5 %)

Amendment 2—

• Yes: 278,164 (58.1 %)
• No: 200,624 (41.9 %)

[Biden “under-performance”: 26,212]

Hillsborough County (Tampa—the fourth most populous county in FL)

• Biden: 375, 714 (52.8 %)
• Trump: 326,158 (46 %)

Amendment 2—

• Yes: 402,095 (60.3 %)
• No: 267,685 (39.97 %)

[Biden “under-performance”: 26,381]

Pinellas County (Tampa Bay-St. Pete area)

• Biden: 277,191 (49.6 %)
• Trump: 275,949 (49.4 %)

Amendment 2—

• Yes: 312,569 (59.65 %)
• No: 211,452 (40.35 %)

[Biden “under-performance”: 35,378]

... [T]he above differences in the numbers are pretty stark—and raises a legitimate argument that Biden should have put a wildly popular Amendment 2 at the forefront of his campaign in Florida, ESPECIALLY in communities where he had perceived weaknesses or a lack of excitement for his candidacy. And even if Biden still fell short in the state, a full-throated embrace of a stark, pocket-book appeal would likely help win other down-ballot races and, long-term, help the party build.

Second point: I don’t share the progressive knee-jerk argument that polling shows the majority of the American people support progressives ideas like “Medicare For All” and, so, you just have to roll these ideas out and, presto, the people will vote in favor.

That’s rubbish-- because (a) polling questions are very dodgy in how they can be framed [as an aside: it’s amusing to hear my fellow progressives denounce polls…and at the same time use polls to back up a central argument…makes for great fundraising emails, though!] and (b) polling never can factor in a brutal, well-funded, pro-corporate anti-campaign once an idea hits the streets.

And that’s the point going forward: Progressive ideas are big winners BUT you need good organizing to win.

What's Wrong With The Florida Democratic Party?

FDP chair Terrie Rizzo-- Not just Florida's but America's fate could be in her hands

On February 18, just in time for the March presidential primary in Florida, the secretary of state reported that there are currently 5,103,540 registered Democrats, 4,823,917 registered Republicans and 3,619,456 No Party Affiliation voters. And yet... the Florida legislature is made up of 73 Republicans and 46 Democrats in the House and 23 Republicans and 17 Dems in the Senate. Those are weird disparities for a 50/50 state. Obviously, you can blame it on gerrymandering and you would be correct... or partially correct.

Tuesday, we started the morning with a look at one of the star recruits for the state legislature this cycle, Jared West in Polk County's 41st district. But he wasn't a recruit of the Florida Democratic Party. He was recruited by the Florida Environmental Caucus, 90 For 90 and... by himself and people in his community who thought he would be a much better member of the legislature than garden variety conservative Republican Sam Killebrew. It struck me as exceedingly odd that the Florida Democratic Party hadn't recruited a candidate and haven't embraced West. Why exceedingly odd? Well, Polk County has been getting bluer and bluer and will probably be its own congressional district after the next maps drawn and because HD-41 is already a district with a Democratic voters advantage. You read that right-- the Florida Democratic Party was ready to concede a district to a Republican incumbent in a district with 47,409 registered Democrats, 41,497 registered Republicans, 37,128 NPA voters. What the hell is that about?

Is that how Terrie Rizzo and Juan Peñalosa think they're going to win back the legislature? Is that how Terrie Rizzo and Juan Peñalosa think they're going to build a vibrant Democratic Party? Is that how Terrie Rizzo and Juan Peñalosa think they're going to develop a Democratic bench? Is that how Terrie Rizzo and Juan Peñalosa think they're going to win Florida-- a state with notoriously close elections-- for Biden? Why are Terrie Rizzo and Juan Peñalosa running the Florida Democratic Party? It's almost as though they were appointed by Ron DeSantis and Joe Gruters.

And then I noticed that the Polk County district wasn't unique in that way. HD-15 is entirely in Duval County and has another conservative Republican incumbent, Wyman Duggan who the Florida Democratic Party was willing to give a free pass to reelection with the old Debbie Wasserman Schultz tactic of recruiting "Democratic candidates" in districts her favored Republicans represented who don't actually run. The Florida Democratic Party was satisfied with pretend-Democrat Tammyette Thomas, a pastor who does not match the affluent district profile, announced for the seat last year, but raised no money and, on examination, appears suspiciously like Kim Daniels, a Republican in Democratic clothing. HD-15 is one of the most obviously flippable seats in the whole legislature. In a county fuming over the Trump/DeSantis pandemic, there are 43,584 registered Dems, 41,249 registered Republicans and 22,912 NPA voters. There's also a real Democrat in the primary, Jay McGovern, a well known Navy veteran and former congressional candidate. McGovern is looking good to win the primary and offer Duggan some competition-- unless the FDP sabotages him.

HD 105 is another interesting district that deserves some scrutiny. Most of it is in Miami-Dade with small pieces of Broward and Collier counties. In a wave year like 2020, it should definitely be a blue district, if for no other reason, because of the registration numbers-- 27,289 Dems, 27,064 Republicans, 29,769 NPA. The Republican incumbent, Ana Maria Rodriguez, is retiring rather than face Democrat Javier Estevez again. He almost won in 2018, just 417 votes separating the two of them in a 50.4% to 49.6% decision. This is a seat that defines the word flippable. But instead of rallying around Estevez, the local version of EMILY's List-- Ruth's List-- is playing identity politics games, putting up a primary challenger, Maureen Porras.

Andy Mele is a respected and well-liked environmental activist on Manatee County. HD-71 is pretty red-- 46,605 Republicans, 37,074 Democrats and 28,271 NPA voters, but not too far gone for a wave election year. Again, no interest by the Florida Democratic Party to take on a GOP incumbent, this time Will Robinson. The Manatee County district-- with a bit of Sarasota County-- is inside the crucial 16th congressional district, where Florida Democrats are hoping that state Rep. Margaret Good will flip Vern Buchanan's seat. Why would the FDP leave an uncontested HD inside a coveted flippable CD that the DCCC is playing hard for? Andy Mele is making it a real contest, exciting Democratic voters who are also going to get out and vote for Good and for Biden. And the contribution of the FDP? Reusing to give him access to the voter files for the district.

Charlie Crist, a former Republican who served as both Attorney General and Governor managed to flip a red congressional seat. Inside his congressional district sits HD-65 (Pinellas County), where powerful Republican Chris Sprowls-- in line to become Speaker if Republicans maintain the majority-- is the incumbent. The FDP decided, for whatever reason, to give him a free pass. This is INSANE! Another ex-Republican, like Crist, was recruited by the Florida Environmental Caucus and 90 For 90 and she-- if not the FDP-- is taking Sprowls on. The district has 51,475 registered Republicans, 38,121 Democrats and 35,640 NPA voters-- tough but not impossible... well, not impossible if you try. Impossible if you don't try.

HD-5 is a red hellhole in the Panhandle, spread over Walton, Jackson, Washington, Holmes and Bay counties. Right-wing nut Brad Drake is the incumbent and, as usual the FDP decided to ignore the district. But the environmental caucus didn't; they recruited a progressive firebrand, Annie Huffman. But... it is the only district that had the Democratic candidate disqualified due to a supposed filing error. The case is currently being litigated, in order to get Huffman on the ballot. Because she's a Bernie supporter she doesn't have the “blessing” of the Walton County DEC Chair, Samantha Hope Herring. There's something very strange here and many people suspect dirty dealing. It's a tough district but there are 32,872 registered Democrats and if they don't turn out for Biden, it's going to be that much harder to win the state. Having Annie Huffman fighting for progressive values would help turn out those Dems-- not to mention help turn some of the 18,847 NPA voters in the legislative district.

One more I want to mention-- HD-116, fully in Miami-Dade-- and home to right-wing power-house Daniel Perez (in line to be Speaker in 2024 if the Democrats keep allowing the GOP to hold onto their majority. They didn't bother recruiting anyone to run against Perez, of course. But the Environmental Caucus and 90 for 90 did-- Bob Lynch, who is kicking butt and taking no prisoners. He has Perez the ropes in a race where he expected (was promised?) no opposition. Like in all Florida swing district races, the winner will be determined by the NPA voters and in HD-116 there are 31,995 of them. If Lynch can appeal to them and turn out the nearly 30,000 Democrats in the district, he'll replace Perez in November. Lynch was on air with Jonathan Tasini at Working Life yesterday. Take a look and listen to what he has to say. If you like it... well, Lynch its the guy who is going to lead the impeachment movement against Ron DeSantis in Tallahassee next year. So, that ActBlue 2020 Florida thermometer on the right? Please click on it and show these candidates some love. They sure don't get any from the lame state Democratic Party. Florida voters aren't forgetting how DeSantis' and his puppets in the legislature have let them down. Yesterday another 9,446 new cases in the state, bringing the total to 451,423, already 10,000 more than New York. There are 21,018 cases per million Floridians, one of the worst in the country. Over 6,000 Floridians have died-- 216 more yesterday-- and the hospitals are full and overflowing. This is a good year for Democrats to run against Republicans, especially Republicans like Daniel Perez.





This new video (below), while not Florida specific, certainly applies to Florida. And, besides, the Lincoln Project just released it a few minutes ago. I knew you'd want to be among the first to watch it. Sure, they're conservative Republicans over there at the Lincoln Project, but they sure know how to make a strong statement with their ad campaigns. This one will help defeat Trump and help elect Democrats up and down the ballot... like Bob Lynch and the other recruits for the Florida state legislature:

The Race To Replace California's Worst Democrat In Congress

California is a blue state but the Republican wing of the Democratic Party is very strong in the state. There are 46 California Democrats serving in the House. Believe me, they're not all like Barbara Lee, Ted Lieu, Ro Khanna or Judy Chu. according to ProgressivePunch, 15 have voting records that score "A." Three more than that-- 18-- have voting records that score "F." The worst belongs to Blue Dog Jim Costa, who doesn't even have the excuse of being in a red or even a swing district. CA-17, his central Valley district has a PVI of D+9. Not even the DCCC at its most incompetent could lose a district that blue. In fact, although Democrats routinely get elected in red districts-- including strong red districts-- there is only one blue district in the entire country held by a Republican at this point-- NY-24 (D+3).





There is no conceivable reason why Democrats in Fresno, Merced, Madera, Chowchilla and Los Banos should have to put up with someone as conservative and someone as opposed to core Democratic Party values as Costa. Replacing him should be a priority for California progressives. Another conservative candidate from the party machine-- Esmeralda Soria, a long-time Costa supporter-- jumped into the race, a purely careerist move that may have inspired some anti-Costa activists because she surely wasn't going to be as bad as he is, even just because she's a woman and younger than him. But not even remotely a progressive. But then we met former Obama administration diplomat Kimberly Williams and quickly figured out that we do have a real progressive in the race-- under-financed to be sure, but someone with the values we need in Congress. Blue America endorsed her. So did the local chapter of Our Revolution. Then PDA came on board.

One trusted progressive group didn't though-- Courage Campaign. They endorsed Soria. I contacted them and told them they had made a grievous error. They told me they hadn't made an error at all. Yesterday, I introduced them to Kim Williams and sent them-- with her permission-- this letter she had sent me, a letter that was a continuation of a week's worth of correspondence. She also said it would be OK for me to share it here at DWT. Please read it and consider contributing to her campaign by clicking on the 2020 Blue America Primary A Blue Dog thermometer on the right. his isn't about personalities or just getting rid of the odious Jim Costa. It is also about Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, affordable housing, debt-free college, criminal justice reform and whether California is going to send another conservative Democrat to Congress like Ami Bera, Pete Aguilar, Julia Brownley, Lou Correa and Scott Peters or someone who is going to stand up with Barbara Lee, Ro Khanna and Ted Lieu. Esmeralda Soria is a Dianne Feinstein Democrat. Is that good enough? Or do you want another member of Congress who has endorsed Bernie and is running on much of his platform?



Kim Williams' Letter:

I know several other people have reached out besides Kevin [Hall] to folks with the Courage Campaign. [Soria] has a terrible track record with environmentalists and homeless advocates, and she is not known as a progressive here by any actual progressives.

Those who are progressive know that Soria came up the ranks under well known conservatives in the Valley, and from the very beginning of this race, she has identified as a centrist. In fact, at our first meeting, she told me directly that I was further left than her and she thought we could help each other. Since that time last summer, we've done several candidate forums together and I've never heard her articulate a single word of progressive policy on anything from labor to healthcare. She frequently misstates basic facts and runs from hard questions around policies considered too far left by right-leaning Democrats. If she would have come out as a progressive, I would have dropped out of the race and supported her a long time ago. She never did.

My friends and I have knocked on nearly 6,000 doors and every time we passed out literature for my campaign, we shared Bernie's literature because our platforms have aligned from the start. I also endorsed him after he was hospitalized and pundits tried to say he was done.  We've backed progressive policies when it was unheard of in the Valley and even risky to do so. And we've paid for it in several ways. I've walked out of fundraising events without one dollar because I supported Bernie for president and a Green New Deal. We've been completely ignored by the local media which won't cover 500 people at an impeachment rally but will print astonishingly sexists op-eds because they want to reflect all view points. We have gone up against an ocean of structural bias and every manner of low-grade corruption in this race, but we never wavered in our support for progressive policies.

There's a reason PDA national, you, Our Revolution's local chapter, and DSA (who is expected to announce this weekend) have all backed this policy-driven campaign. We are showing up in all the forgotten places no other candidate has visited, and we are boldly backing a progressive policy platform that she quite publicly runs from. It’s why we have the progressive volunteer base that shows up every weekend. They understand, and frequently state,that if Soria doesn’t have the backbone to support Medicare for All and a Green New Deal at a debate, then she won’t fight for it when the Washington lobbyists come calling.

What has happened is unfortunate, and I get why someone outside the district might come to the conclusion that she’s progressive, especially when she calls herself one in front of progressive groups. But if you step outside the small circle of Fresno’s political class of older Democrats who speak Republican and insiders who embrace transactional politics, you will find hundreds of thousands of people living in poverty who are in desperate need of change.

This is why I entered this race, and this is why I stayed. We knew from the beginning this would be a David and Goliath battle but I wanted to shine a light on the horrific poverty that plagues this district and demand a progressive economic solution. Party insiders, of which Soria is very much a part, may shape the public narrative which has no doubt influenced the referenced poll I've never seen, but they do not speak for the masses. They are part of the political neglect that has denied the experiences of so many struggling families and are surprised by the fact that Bernie and his “far left” policies are resonating so loudly with a base of voters that needs housing, healthcare, and jobs. Soria is not backing Bernie now because she is brave, she’s doing it because he’s rising in the polls.

I wish the Courage Campaign could have connected with Emily Brandt, who wrote three in-depth pieces on each Democratic candidate in the race. She spent hours going over policy with Soria, and she would not commit to Medicare for All. They could have also checked with James Williams and Bill Hess with PDA's local club who know her long history of rising up through the ranks under conservatives and could speak to Soria’s public remarks on healthcare. And I wished someone could have connected with the young Democrats at UCMerced when she told them Medicare for All was impossible to achieve.

From my view, and I know I speak as a competitor, the Courage Campaign did not endorse a woman of courage who will defend progressive policies. They endorsed a woman who whispers support for Medicare for All in closed rooms and then reverts to conservative talking points when she's in front of establishment Democrats. She doesn't even support it on her website. I'd also add that whatever success she's found so far has been achieved through personal connections and by catering to the establishment. If someone is hoping that she'll cross the finish line by embracing progressive polices now that the progressives have done the hard work of proving there's a appetite for such a thing, can they really be sure she'll deliver in Washington?

Regardless of how this email is taken, I care about nothing more than lifting our families out of poverty. From the day I arrived, I knew I could leave. But I stayed because I knew there were thousands of families here that could not escape countless neighborhoods that literally resembled third world counties. I didn't care one bit about who moved the policies forward, I just wanted change no one else was calling for. Soria is part of the insider club that has helped maintain the status quo and I have no faith that she will deliver on any promise she might make now. 

Please feel free to pass my number along if anyone would like to discuss this race further.

All my best,

Kim

So How Many More Seats Will The Democrats Win In Texas Next Year?

John Cornyn and Cristina Ramirez

It’s bizarre predicting who will win congressional seats even before primaries determine who the candidates will be in November. Texas has especially spirited primaries all over the place, starting with the Senate race. Incumbent John Cornyn isn’t especially popular but Texas is still a Republican state and it’s hard to imagine a Democrat beating him-- unless it’s the right Democrat rat with the right strategy and execution… and a nice healthy Democratic wave. Cristina Ramirez might be just the right person to do that. She’s easily the best of the 11 confirmed candidates. How does this sound? “The best way to get people motivated and excited to actually participate in our democracy is by talking about policies that will actually change their lives. I know that because I’ve been fighting for working people in Texas for over a decade. When I was 24, I founded the Workers Defense Project, a labor organization that represents workers, not an easy task in a right to work state like Texas. But even so, I went up against big bosses of the construction industry, and local city councils to advocate for and secure victories for working people. During my tenure, Workers Defense Project recovered almost $1 million in wages stolen from workers, secured paid rest breaks for construction workers and got wage increases for public school teachers. John Cornyn doesn’t represent working people. He’s voted against minimum wage increases, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and sided with pharmaceutical companies instead of helping to lower prescription drug costs. I, on the other hand, know that it’s not too much to ask, that in the richest country in the world, everyone’s healthcare is covered through a Medicare for All system. I know that a Green New Deal would create millions of jobs while combating climate change.”

OK, now let’s go down all 36 congressional districts, move of which are not yet seriously contestable.

• TX-01- Solid red- Louie Gohmert (PVI is R+25)
• TX-02- Leans red- Dan Crenshaw (R+11)
• TX-03- Likely red- Van Taylor (R+13)
• TX-04- Solid red- John Ratcliffe (R+28)
• TX-05- Solid red- Lance Gooden (R+16)
• TX-06- Leans red- Ron Wright (R+9)
• TX-07- leans slightly blue- Lizzy Fletcher (R+7)- worthless New Dem who has done nothing to deserve reelection and will be in mortal danger in 2022
• TX-08- Solid red- Kevin Brady (R+28)
• TX-09- Solid blue- Al Green (D+29)
• TX-10- Swinging blue- Michael McCaul (R+9)- If Democrats choose Mike Siegel, this is a likely flip; neither of the other two candidates is electable but the DCCC (and EMILY’s List) don’t care if they win the seat. They just want to keep it away from a progressive.
• TX-11- Solid red- Michael Conaway- retiring (R+32)
• TX-12- Solid red- Kay Granger (R+18)
• TX-13- Solid red- Mac Thornberry- retiring (R+33)
• TX-14- Leans red- Randy Weber is- retiring (+12)
• TX-15- Solid blue- Vicente Gonzalez (D+7)
• TX-16- Solid blue- Veronica Escobar (D+17)
• TX-17- Leans red- Bill Flores- retiring (R+12)- local GOP is a mess and fatally flawed crooked Republican Pete Sessions could be vulnerable if he wins the GOP primary
• TX-18- Solid blue- Sheila Jackson Lee (D+27)- she could be in danger in the primary
• TX-19- Solid red- Jodey Arrington (R+27)
• TX-20- Solid blue- Joaquin Castro (D+10)
• TX-21- Toss Up- Chip Roy (R+10)- Wendy Davis could beat Roy if the wave is big enough
• TX-22- Leans red- Pete Olson- retiring (R+10)- very flawed Democratic primary frontrunner
• TX-23- Likely to flip blue- Will Hurd retiring (D+1)- If Gina Jones loses again, perhaps the Democrats will run a Latino in 2022 and win the heavily Hispanic district
• TX-24- Leans slightly red- Kenny Marchant- retiring (R+9)- clusterfuck Democratic primary but Candace Valenzuela looks like the best candidate to flip the seat blue
• TX-25- Leans red- Roger Williams (R+11)- 2 very strong
progressives in the primary
• TX-26- Solid red- Michael Burgess (R+18)
• TX-27- Likley red- Michael Cloud (R+13)
• TX-28- Solid blue- Henry Cellar (R+9)— Cuellar in jeopardy in the primary with strong challenge from Jessica Cisneros
• TX-29- Solid blue- Sylvia Garcia (D+19)
• TX-30- Solid blue- Eddie Bernice Johnson (D+29)
• TX-31- Leans slightly red- John Carter (R+10)- another clusterfuck of a Democratic primary
• TX-32- Leans slightly blue- Collin Allred (R+5)- another worthless New Dem who has done nothing to deserve reelection and will be in mortal danger in 2022
• TX-33- Solid blue- Marc Veasey (D+23)
• TX-34- Solid blue- Filemon Vela (D+10)
• TX-35- Solid blue- Lloyd Doggett (D+15)
• TX-36- Solid red- Brian Babin (R+26)

OK, so aside from the $1,000 on Christmas she gave you to enjoy, granny gave you another $1,000 to help turn Texas more progressive. What to do? What to do? Glad you asked. I would give $250 to Cristina Ramirez’s Senate campaign, $250 to Mike Siegel’s TX-10 campaign, $100 to Candace Valenzuela, $100 to Jessica Cisneros, and $100 to each of the TX-25 candidates, Heidi Sloan and Julie Oliver and maybe light a candle for Wendy Davis, who is absolutely raking in the money and and doesn’t need yours as much as the other candidates. She’s taken in $939,038 already and is sure to get tons from EMILY’s List and the DCCC. Conveniently, that Turning Texas Blue ActBlue thermometer on the right is nice and handly-- whether you have $1,000 to contribute or just $10.

Three-Way Democratic Race In California's Central Valley-- The Choice Is Clear

It's crucially important to get to know who a candidate is in order to be able to predict what kind of a member of Congress they are likely to be-- not just how they will vote-- but also how they will lead, how competent and effective they will be, etc. Recently, we asked incisive author, labor activist, author and former congressional candidate Jonathan Tasini to spend some time with Central Valley progressive Kim Williams. The resulting interview on the Working Life Podcast (above) offers one of the best opportunities to get to know Williams. I urge you to listen to the 23 minute discussion. If you like what you hear, you can contribute to Kim's grassroots campaign by clicking on the Congress Needs More Progressive Women thermometer below.

Recently, Fresno Free Press reporter Emily Brandt dug into the crucial election in CA-16, a blue district that takes in parts of Fresno, Merced and Madera counties. It's a D+9 district where Obama won both times he ran and even Hillary beat Trump (58.0% to 36.4%). Brandt began by looking at the very conservative Blue Dog incumbent, Jim Costa, by asking if he deserves another term.

In his 14 years in Congress, Costa has only written five bills, one of which was the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. This pivotal legislation prevents local municipalities from enacting rent control on any properties. It was largely supported by Republicans, but some Democrats voted for it because of a clause that states “if serious health, safety, fire, or building code violations were discovered and not corrected for six months” rents cannot be raised. Attempts to reverse and/or repeal this act are ongoing, the last of which failed in 2018 over the fears that rent control lowers the production of low-income housing.

Money in political campaigns: Representative Costa’s congressional career began before public interest and scrutiny into money and campaigns had grown to the current high level. That focus is the direct product of Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign and his insistence on remaining distant from for-profit Political Action Committees, large influential donors such as Wall Street investment firms and banks, large pharmaceutical companies, the fossil fuel industry, private health care companies, and other interest groups that have a comfortable history of controlling the policy of Democratic candidates as much as Republican candidates running for office.

Costa’s record belies his stated commitments to climate change, improving air and water quality while taking large sums from Chevron and others who are even now polluting Kern County, the City of Richmond, and other areas of California. He appears not to be bothered by the frequent benefits to the privileged few resulting from his votes with Republicans rather than Democrats and his embrace of powerful interest groups. This is no great surprise to anyone since it has been the pattern of hundreds of members of Congress for decades.

  Costa’s family owned a large corporate dairy farm called Costa Brothers Dairy and real estate interests worth several million dollars, which in no way reflects the experience of farmworkers. His family’s farming interests have turned to almonds rather than dairy over the years.

His stories of driving tractors on the farm ring hollow next to the accounts of those who have been paid below minimum wage for decades, suffering health problems from repetitive work injuries and pesticide exposure, at the least, whose stories of farm labor fail to be romanticized as do Costa’s. That isn’t to ignore the fact that Costa’s ancestors had a hard row to hoe as they accumulated sufficient wealth to establish a dairy of their own.

Costa’s family finances have made money matters easy–on paper–with $1 million in the bank from the corporate farm and $1 million from his family’s real estate business. Another view of Costa’s campaign donations can be found here. The differences between his finances and Williams are, not surprisingly, very large; Soria has pledged not to take any for-profit donations during the Primary, so for the moment, there’s not much there.

In the past, Soria’s Councilmember runs reveal big donations from developers and other interests. What her finances will look like should she win the Primary will be interesting to watch. Senator Elizabeth Warren has made the same pledge in her run for president. The amount of influence purchased can only reveal itself over some terms in office, as they have with Costa.

Environment Commitments: Costa’s bill-sponsorship record is pretty small given his eight terms in office. With his record of sponsoring a meager five bills in nearly 16 years, Costa could not be described as an active legislator. To vote 43% of the time with Republicans is very high, especially in a district with a high number of Democratic voters, most of whom represent a high rate of poverty, low educational levels and who suffer from high rates of serious disease due to environmental pollution.

The League of Conservation Voters gives him a 69% rating–though to be fair–Costa did miss a number of key votes due to a medical procedure. In May of 2019, he did vote in favor of the U.S. staying in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Reversing Pres. Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act; Bill H.1231; vote number 11-HV320 on May 12, 2011, Costa voted YES on Opening the Continental Shelf to Oil Drilling in 2012 at increasing levels through 2027. This bill reverses new efforts after the BP oil platform disaster at implementing stronger safety regulations to prevent spills. It also gives access to Exxon-Mobil and Shell Oil Company profits at the expense of the environment. Costa’s reliance on very large donations from Chevron among others, explains his willingness to vote against bills that restrict the access of Big Oil to new oil fields.

In the same year, Costa voted for the Energy Tax Prevention Act; Bill H.910; vote number 11-HV249 which would have prevented the EPA from regulating  Greenhouse Gas Emissions. This is an especially damaging vote since his district, Congressional District 16 has the worst air quality in the State of California. Yet, he was re-elected following a whole series of votes that put his district’s residents at greater risk. Democrats have stood by him for decades and are only now beginning to show signs of rejecting this record of failing to serve their best interest.

Clearly, protecting farmworkers and others was not an issue on Costa’s mind when he voted for the ACRE Bill, Agricultural Certainty for Reporting Emissions, eliminating  vital provisions in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) which protects the public through the clean up of industrial toxic waste dumps, oil spills, and chemical tank explosions and enforcement of environmental regulations on farmland.

Anything that would reduce or lessen these types of public health protection is a very bad idea and the City of Fresno and surrounding county is replete with such former Superfund sites. The Bill even makes it easier for farmers to dump pesticides into waterways regulated by the Clean Water Act.

Costa’s vote to fund the Keystone Pipeline is in direct contradiction to any commitments he has made to mitigate the impact of climate change. He was one of 28 Democrats in the House of Representatives who voted to build the pipeline. Overall, Costa’s votes on energy were rated at 33% by the Campaign for America’s Future...

Medicare For All/Single Payer/Medical Debt Forgiveness: When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, Costa only voted in favor of the legislation in March 2010, long after other Democrats had committed themselves. His vote was only secured after the Democratic Party promised to give Costa and Dennis Cardoza funding for a medical school in the Central Valley. Costa would only commit to healthcare reform as far as Soria has. Both believe that the ACA needs a few minor unspecified tweaks.

Clearly, Soria has every reason from her parent’s experience to support Medicare for All. Costa, however, does not seem to have any personal incentives to do so. Williams is committed to Medicare for All and to all of Bernie Sanders platforms as she demonstrated on her website kimwilliamsforcongress.com and further sealed in her open endorsement of Bernie Sanders.

...Free Public University Tuition/Student Debt Forgiveness: College debt forgiveness does not seem to be a concern to Rep. Costa. He has devoted several pages of his website to the subject of financial aid, to help students navigate the process in high school and maintain solvency in college though there are no promises of amending the current plan in any way. The pages make access to existing loan information available to students in a step-by-step process. 

On Friday, Brandt asked another question for Fresno readers to ponder: Kim Williams: Can A Policy Wonk Change The Central Valley For The Good? She began by asking Williams what motivated her to run for Congress. Williams told her to is poverty and wrote that she went on to reflect: "My day-to-day encounters and then researching the numbers and just seeing how many homeless families [there are in Congressional District 16] was so appalling to me and so unacceptable that I couldn’t understand why more federal resources weren’t being put into place and the more I saw that, the more I see that there was just a ton of political neglect here."

One particular area of interest to Williams has long been American History which she taught for seven years as a tenured faculty member at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, Florida. She studied the slave trade and traveled the slave route ultimately leading her to a U.S. State Department assignment in the African nation of Ghana. One persistent thread through her life seems to be to seek out geographical places and cultures that are unlike any she’s previously known.

This seems to be what led her to and has anchored her in the Central Valley of California working for Mariposa County as the Director of Human Resources where she is currently. This type of work follows naturally upon her work in Management and Communications in the U.S. State Department where Williams spent her last years before moving to California.

As a U.S. historian, she looks for the roots, the causes as the key to finding solutions; as a diplomat who served in Africa and Siberia, she also tends to look at everything on a large scale. As she emphasizes, this kind of poverty isn’t happening in other parts of North America and there is a reason for that. Her efforts to reach public officials to get answers here have been unsuccessful.

She has learned, as many of us have, that the powers that be make a concerted effort to avoid taking our calls and engaging with community members. The reasons, she concluded, must be linked to the fact that they don’t want to answer for their conservative voting patterns and inability to take on this district’s tougher challenges.

Williams begins talking about her experience as a single mother. She describes the many moments of “low-grade terror of ‘I know she’s not well, I have a meeting at work and I feel forced to choose between caring for my child and for my job that supports my child.’ I don’t ever want another parent to feel that way and I know millions do.” That’s why she was attracted to Elizabeth Warren’s Universal Pre-K Plan. Now, she’s recognized that Bernie Sanders offers exactly such a plan and offers much more along the lines that Williams enthusiastically supports which have won her the important endorsement of Our Revolution, Sanders’ non-profit PAC and Justice Democrats.

Money In Political Campaigns: Williams has never run for public office before, so there is no record to compare her current practice of refusing corporately funded PAC money. Williams devotes a section of her VISION statements to the subject. She explores the damage it is doing to the whole exercise of government as the primary protector of the people from the exploitation of largely unregulated big money and corporate interests that pay few if any, taxes. A comparison of the three Congressional District 16 candidates Federal Election Commission filings is here.

At the Fresno County Latina Democrats Debate Forum, Williams addressed the persistent problems of billions of dollars being spent to influence Washington to make decisions that favor corporate interests and hurt the public in very direct ways. This is why she proposes solutions such as creating publicly funded elections and eliminating corporately-funded Political Action Committees such as those created by oil companies, pharmaceutical companies and the health insurance industry to name a few. They are ultimately creating, controlling and approving the litigation almost without the middle “people” sitting in chairs in Congress. Williams does not accept Democratic National Committee funds.

Environmental Commitments: Williams states very directly that “everything is intersectional” or interdependent, and Climate Change is really at the center of this. She embraces the Green New Deal completely and is committed to the ways in which each part of the process from transitioning off of fossil fuels to renewable energy affects every area from producing electricity to manufacturing cars that are fossil fuel independent, food production, food waste management, toxic waste management to rethinking geopolitics on a global scale. Williams turns to history to draw parallels and make distinctions between the original New Deal and the Green New Deal.

Like the New Deal of the 1930s, she says the Green New Deal can establish “fixed-term project and programs” and those types of investments, particularly to rural communities, was just life-altering for generations to come to bring in experts . . . who can solve the water and air problems and get us to where we have clean air and not the least-breathable air in America. Unlike the New Deal which excluded women, people of color for some time and would not work with unions, the Green New Deal would be worker protected and eliminate all the flaws of the original New Deal.

“The Green New Deal does two things: it fixes the immediate crisis of environmental concerns, but then it’s building that class of engineers, healthcare workers, scientists who can support a middle class for generations to come and attract jobs to the area because you have this great base of workers,” she explains,” this forms the new middle class, as sustainable and growing new businesses, attracting new businesses to the area who will depend on the now skilled workforce while also providing a need for the service sector once again. This then leads us into the future of the “next new bold ideas.”

This is how Williams sees the impact of the Green New Deal as it focuses the economy not on maintaining the status quo with industries as they currently are polluting air and water, but in industries that will clean up and solve the problems those industries have brought with them. She goes on to contrast that picture of the future with what we currently have: Amazon-like businesses which do not choose to base their headquarters for management in Fresno, but chose instead to build a fulfillment center that didn’t require an educated or skilled workforce.

These centers will fade into obsolescence in five years perhaps as they are replaced by robots and which once again, leaves Fresno with a large group of unemployed workers who have gained no skills and/or education to lead to better jobs and a better quality of life. Even the trucking industry is working very hard to develop systems of self-driving trucks to replace drivers.

The added cost to the community in forfeiting the Amazon, Ulta and other corporate taxes, that could have funded a myriad of improvements to the poor community, is what lured them to this poorest of areas in the first place. It is rank human and environmental exploitation which Soria defends because it brought “jobs.”

Medicare For All/Single Payer/Medical Debt Forgiveness:  “Healthcare is a human right.” Aside from the fact that all European countries have some variation of universal healthcare which covers all medical, dental, optical and mental healthcare, Williams envisions a system that will absorb all the current healthcare workers who are now part of the private industry.

These tasks will largely still need to be performed for processing payments, prescriptions, procedures, therapies, hospitalizations, etc. Redundancies will be eliminated and the bloated executive class who are grossly overpaid will no longer exist. There will also be no corporations, no advertising for healthcare companies or big pharma and no stockholders. These are some of the major generators of high cost.

In many ways, it will be a return to pre-Nixon healthcare when it was illegal to make a profit from healthcare-related industries. “Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be.”

The current system has only been in place some 46 years and it shouldn’t be viewed as such an irrational move. As Williams states on her website, “California’s family coverage premiums have increased by 248.8%. This high cost has not improved the quality of our healthcare or increased access. In our district, 62,000 individuals have no coverage at all.”

...Free Public University Tuition/Student Debt Forgiveness: Working her way through college was difficult but not an impossibility at the time that Williams attended in the 1990s. It was vastly different from Soria’s younger brother’s experience. The first increase in the price of a public college education came after Baby Boomers had attended for nearly free.

Costs rose steadily through the 1980s, 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s, but the recent jump in cost didn’t begin until about five years ago, during the Great Recession. Working your way through college used to mean you could pay for your living expenses and use financial aid for your tuition. That no longer works after the massive cuts to financial aid, in addition to incredibly high tuitions, and the steep rise in interest rates on student loans.

Given Williams’ awareness of this history and her time spent overseas where higher education is often free or nearly free, it doesn’t seem like a pipe-dream or unrealistic plan to her. Forty years ago, California had such a system for public universities. Living expenses weren’t free; students either lived with their parents or they worked their way through college, but tuition itself was free.

People actually left their Canadian homes to take advantage of the free public university tuition after establishing residence in California to get eligibility. Williams calls her vision for this “Debt-Free College.” On her website, she states: “Education is key to breaking generational poverty. Higher education leads to greater social mobility and economic opportunity, and when we prioritize education in all communities, the middle class will grow.” 

Williams plan...

I support student debt cancellation of up to $50,000 and public service loan forgiveness programs that connect graduates with high need communities like those in California’s 16th congressional district. I also support tuition-free community colleges and technical schools as well as tuition-free education at public four-year schools for financially-challenged families” (https://kimwilliamsforcongress.com/wpcampaign/debt-free-college/ is very similar to that of Bernie Sanders.

Soria has no college debt plan nor any plan for funding colleges in a way that makes them affordable for all students. Costa’s website, like Soria, does not provide any policy positions or platforms beyond a list of his accomplishments.

Will the Central Valley recognize the rare opportunity to be represented by someone who has valuable State Department experience in the foreign service which means being sent to new areas of the world to assess and embrace the cultures, problems and solutions quickly and deeply. The Central Valley is another area-- a deeply troubled area that legislators and local politicians have left behind to be ruled by real estate developers and Big Agriculture for decades. Will Central Valley voters yet again be blindly loyal to the lure of unsatisfactory leaders simply because they are local?

The third candidate in the race, Esmeralda Soria, is a member of the Fresno City Council who, at least ideologically, is more like Costa than like anyone resembling a progressive. "Her record," wrote Brandt, "is mixed on redevelopment policy in Fresno, environmental restrictions on industrial and agricultural pollution, and policies that will end the gross under-employment suffered by tens of thousands of city residents. In her campaign letter, Soria mentions her commitment to clean water and air and says she is a leader who 'will stand up to corporate special interests and the powerful to do what is right for the Valley–no matter what the political consequences.' Does her voting record bear out this commitment?

Although she was absent for the Fresno city council vote to give Amazon tax benefits and locate a fulfillment center in South Central Fresno, one of the most polluted and poorest areas of Fresno, she has since spoken favorably about the Center. Prior to that, Soria and Baines voted against The Gap’s warehouse because of environmental and health concerns.

Then Soria reversed course on Amazon saying in our interview that “we need the jobs.” She forfeited the tax monies that the community could have benefited from and sank the residents into increased trucking and diesel pollution that brings in tons of toxic air. An example of the pollution damage can be found [in the video below] from the failed Caglia Project in South Central Fresno.





During this interview, she said that she would stand up to corporate interests, but she has not shown this willingness to stand up, whatever the cost, in her actions so far as some of her policies fail to pass as progressive. Nor do they reflect the environmental values she professes regarding protections against water and air pollution by vigorous enforcement of restrictions with legal consequences. As with most issues, Soria often knows what she should be against, but she lacks the expertise or will to read and research the subjects to gain the expertise to be able to write legislation and make informed policy decisions.

Money In Political Campaigns: In the past, Soria has not been above taking money from real estate developers and other big donors. One look at opensecrets.org reveals a history that is not aligned with the current practices of progressives. In her political novitiate years, she worked for two masters of acquiring corporate funds, former public officials, Henry T. Perea and Michael Rubio. Both men took large donations from corporate interests and then retired from politics early to work full-time as lobbyists for them.

She has committed herself to not accept any “corporate PAC funds,” though she is still accepting direct donations from developers and other powerful corporate interests. This will make it very difficult for Soria to do as she states in her campaign letter “I did so [declared my candidacy] knowing I would be going against incredible odds and entrenched corporate interests.” A comparison of all three candidates’ financial records can be found here.

There is a vast difference between the three Democratic campaigns for Congressional District 16 and their willingness to accept money from corporations. Rep. Jim Costa accepts money from all corporate interests including corporate PAC funds. Soria said in our interview that she is accepting “small donations,” however, her FEC filings reveal money in all forms except corporate PAC funds. To be clear, this means she has accepted money from individuals who are powerful developers giving the maximum amount allowed and which could make Soria beholden to their interests.

Kim Williams accepts money only from individual small-amount donations and from non-profit PACs; she accepts no for-profit corporate PAC funds. The fact of the matter is that even if Soria were currently scrupulously avoiding such big donations by individuals who represent a corporate interest, she still has a record of doing so which continues to provide ties to these interests. Williams has no such history as she has never run for public office before.

Environmental Commitments: The term, “Green New Deal” during this interview, elicited no response from Soria. At the recent Fresno County Latina Democrats District 22 Debate Forum, which featured only Williams and Soria, the latter candidate showed a clear lack of mastery of the subject matter. As a city councilmember, Soria doesn’t seem to have considered it a subject that demanded much research and concern. This, clearly, is not the case since Fresno development is fraught by what to do with land that has been restricted in use by land covenants due to complex toxic land-use histories.

These matters do not seem to have surfaced as areas of focus for Soria. They were not explored deeply in this interview either. During the Fresno County Latina Democrats Forum, Soria gave no hint of having dived into a study of the Green New Deal. She didn’t mention it or any part of the subject of green jobs, ending the reliance on fossil fuels or Climate Change as it will affect the Central Valley.

Climate Change wasn’t a term Soria used or appeared to consider in any way. As mentioned above, she failed to protect South Central and Southwest Fresno from the devastating pollution of the Amazon warehouse, Ulta Beauty distribution center, and other truck distribution headquarters in South Fresno that contribute to life expectancies that are 20-25 years shorter than in North Fresno.

Medicare For All/Single Payer/Medical Debt Forgiveness: [A compelling personal story] didn’t drive her to take a second look at Medicare for All or immerse herself deeply in studying healthcare policy. At a recent UC Merced debate forum, a student asked Soria about Medicare for All. Soria responded that Medicare for all is a “dream.” She likewise said in our interview that it couldn’t become a reality.

...Free Public University Tuition/Student Debt Forgiveness: “I can tell you that I have personally experienced what it is to have college debt,” Soria says, but she fails to go further to solve the problem of what to do to prevent future generations from accruing such college debt and of how to resolve the problem for those who have five and six-figure college debt which is impeding their quality of life right now. They don’t have access to buying houses, in many cases, to having a family and many other things that their parents were able to afford. She spoke of no plan for debt forgiveness, or any other method of solving the problem of college debt.

Likewise, Soria did not talk about how to reduce the cost of college education, but she did devote considerable time to telling the story of her brother who went to the University of Southern California as an undergraduate and then completed a Master’s in Education. He taught for over a year only to leave the profession because he wasn’t earning enough money to support his family.

She mentioned that it makes her mad that he had to make this hard choice as he is now a truck driver and no longer contributing to student lives through teaching, which he clearly loved. Still, Soria provides no broader statistics of information on how these problems can be resolved. What is her plan to fix the problem or will she rely on others to formulate plans and she will just vote for or against them? And will that be enough for residents of Congressional District 16 to vote for her?

Last weekend at the party convention, the California Democratic Party denied Jim Costa its endorsement, making him the only 2020 congressional incumbent without the party's support. Blue America has endorsed Kim Williams, who we feel strongly will give CA-16 the kind of smart, committed advocacy the district badly needs. Williams is one of the best of the 2020 challengers so far this year anywhere and we ask you to consider supporting her campaign by chipping in what you can here or here or here... or here.