Republicans Oppose The Green New Deal-- But So Does My Blue Dog Opponent

by Tom Guild
Democratic candidate, OK-05

A report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that humans can still prevent the worst effects of climate change, but that we have less time than previously thought to undertake a dramatic and speedy transformation of the global economy. Every day, there is more concerning news about rising sea levels and climate-fueled disasters. The task ahead of us is urgent. We must fight for the ecological well-being of the planet we call home. The climate change crisis is an existential threat to humans and to the animals and plants with which we share planet Earth. We must redouble our efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses and to institute sustainable energy practices.

My June 30 primary opponent Kendra Horn has refused to sign onto the Green New Deal proposal. There is scant evidence that she considers climate change important enough to take the steps needed to protect our environmental future. One of my goals when elected to the U.S. House is to support bold action to fight climate change. The principles of the GND will be a good guidepost to help us reverse the damage done by excessive use of and dependence on fossil fuels. We will create tens of millions of good paying green jobs as we transition to an environmentally friendly renewable energy policy. According to a consensus of the scientific community, time is running short to effectively deal with climate change. We must not fail to act and thereby help create an irreversible situation that leads to the destruction of our environment that scientists say may in the foreseeable future render planet earth unsustainable for human life.
   
Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) is a current Democratic member of Congress. He is fighting to make sure the Trump administration does not destroy our environment in the name of saving our health when it is primarily concerned with saving the investments of the top 1%. Lowenthal recently said, "The Trump Administration has spent years rolling back decades of hard-fought environmental progress. The White House has worked to undermine science, accelerate climate change, undo decades of work to protect our air, water, and health, and compromise the health of our planet." Lowenthal is doing the hard work it takes to protect the environment by working to stop Trump and protect the future of our planet--something Trump does not spend any time thinking about, while claiming the climate crisis is a "Chinese hoax."

The Paris Climate Accord was negotiated by representatives of 196 nations in Le Bourget, France, and adopted by consensus on December 12, 2015. The previous U.S. Administration of President Barack Obama took a leading role in pushing for the climate treaty. As of February 2020, 189 countries had become party to the agreement. The Paris Agreement's goal is to pursue efforts to limit and substantially reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. This is to be achieved by reducing emissions as soon as possible, to "achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases" in the second half of the 21st century. The accord also aims to increase the ability of parties to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and make "finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."


 Under the Paris Agreement, each country must determine, plan, and regularly report on the contribution that it undertakes to mitigate climate change. No mechanism forces a country to set specific emissions targets by a specific date, but each target should go beyond previously set targets. In June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the agreement. Under the compact, the earliest effective date of withdrawal for the U.S. is November 2020, shortly before the end of President Trump's current presidential term. The American threat to withdraw from the treaty is a giant setback for the global effort to reduce climate change and to protect our planet.

We need to break down the corrupt corporate and establishment walls that are holding back progress on the environment and climate change. If you agree that we need bold action to effectively address the crisis, we invite you to join our campaign. If you would like to donate you can do that by clicking on the Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right.

Be safe. Love Your Neighbor. Engage in Random Acts of Kindness. Peace.

Striving for A Future We Can All Believe In.

Trump's Veto Stands-- He Is Free To Attack Iran At Will

Blood On Their Hands by Nancy Ohanian

On Thursday, the Senate attempted to override Trump's veto of the joint resolution that directed him to remove American armed forced from hostilities against Iran that hadn't been authorized by Congress. There was never any chance an override was in the cards-- not with 44 Republicans firmly committed to backing anything and everything Trump does. Every Senate Democrat voted to override but only 6 Republicans had the guts (or sense) to join them:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Rand Paul (R-KY)

After the vote, Al Gross, the independent running on the Democratic line in Alaska, noted that "Yet again, party-line Dan Sullivan put National Republicans first, and left Alaska behind. Alaskans don’t believe in party run politics especially when it means putting our military members at risk without oversight and careful consideration. Considering our needs or interests has never been something Dan Sullivan takes to heart so it’s not surprising he voted this way. Dan’s like lap dog for the national Republicans, and Alaskans deserve a real, independent leader to put Alaskans first, whether the president likes it or not."

Had Gross been in the Senate, both Alaska senators would have voted to override. Something tells me Murkowski is hoping that's the outcome in November anyway.

There was no vote in the House, but it's worth remembering that when it passed the House on March 11, there were just 6 no good, dirty, fake Democrats who sided with Trump and the GOP:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)

The only one of these war-monger fake Dems with a primary os Kendra Horn, where she is being challenged by progressive Democrat Tom Guild. Yesterday, he told OK-05 voters that "Under no circumstances should America become engaged in military action in Iran without prior congressional approval. I am deeply disappointed that my June 30 primary opponent Rep. Horn gave the current president or any president carte blanche to start another costly war in the Middle East. During this widespread and destructive pandemic and unprecedented meltdown in the American economy, we should be rebuilding and investing in America, not engaging in more unauthorized international military actions. The American people are tired to the point of exhaustion with America’s endless wars."

Blue America's most recently endorsed candidate, West Virginia progressive Cathy Kunkel, noted that the Republican in the seat she's running for, Alex Mooney, "the hypocritical Republican Congressman from WV-02, was the only Republican to cosponsor legislation (HR 1274) repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force, yet to vote against this resolution. When push came to shove, support for Trump in an election year was more important than his previous belief in restoring Congressional authority to make war. H.R. 1274 cosponsor list show that Thomas Massie (KY) and Justin Amash (MI) were the only other Republican co-sponsors, and both were consistent in supporting the resolution to remove U.S. troops from hostilities with Iran)."

Please consider contributing to Tom's and Cathy's campaigns by clicking on the Blue America 2020 congressional primary thermometer above and giving what you can.

Don't Be Misled By People Pushing Identity Politics To Make A Quick Buck For Themselves

Tom Guild & Kendra Horn-- guess which one is better on women's issues

Yesterday the LGBTQ Victory Fund endorsed 25 new candidates around the country, including 5 for state legislative seats. Presumably they're all Democrats, but who knows? The Victory Fund doesn't mention what party their candidates are running on, let alone whether they are progressives or conservatives. The only thing they care about is that these candidates are gay. This is so bizarre to me, especially since Congress has so many gay-- albeit closeted-- members who are no friends of the LGBTQ community. Like Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jason Smith (R-MO)...

And I don't mean to pick on the gays for this identity politics nonsense. Yesterday, a friend of mine sent me a link to an article in the Jewish Daily Forward highlighting 8 candidates for Congress. Some of the candidates are Democrats and some of them are Republicans. All of them, though, are Jewish. All of them are also relatively conservative. The Forward seemed to boast that "Studies have long shown that Jews are not only more likely to vote in elections, but are also overrepresented in political office." They make no value judgement about why a candidate should be backed-- or opposed-- just they're Jewish. Example:

Renee Unterman, Republican from Georgia

Unterman, a health insurance executive and former mayor, is the only Jewish member of the Georgia state senate, where she’s represented parts of the Atlanta suburbs since 2003. She’s an outspoken conservative-- she wrote an anti-abortion “heartbeat bill,” supports a border wall and has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association. But she’s also shown she’s not afraid to buck members of her own party-- in 2018, she called for an investigation into then-Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who was running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, over questionable campaign donations he had received. After a Kemp spokesman called her “mentally unstable,” she opened up about her history of depression and her son’s death by suicide. “I feel like it’s unusual to be a Republican and Jewish,” she told the Atlanta Jewish Times later that year. “But because of my background, I can connect with certain social issues I may not have if I wasn’t Jewish.” The district is open due to the retirement of incumbent Republican Rep. Brad Goodall, who won the tightest congressional election in the country in 2018 by a margin of 419 votes; Cook rates the race a toss-up.

GA-07 is the most competitive congressional race in Georgia this year. As of December 31, three Democrats-- Carolyn Bourdeaux, Zahra Karinshak (the most conservative of the Dems in this race) and Nabilah Islam (the most progressive in the race)-- and 4 Republicans-- Unterman, Lynne Homrich, Richard McCormick and Lerah Lee-- had raised over half a million dollars each. It's worth noting though that 3 of the 4 Republicans are trying to buy the seat with their own wealth. Unterman's own $602,841 amounted to 63% of her contributions. Homrich's $338,410 was 37% of her contributions. And McCormick's $524,639 was 60% of his contributions. Only one of the Democrats-- Karinshak-- is a self-funder.

All of the Republicans are conservatives as are some of the Democrats. Presumably all that matters, though, is that one is sort of Jewish. (Unterman, who tries playing up her Jewishness, is a convert.)

Anyway, on and on it goes-- very profitable women's operations try to get voters to vote for women; very profitable black operations and latino operations want you to vote for blacks and latinos-- just like gays and Jews-- no matter if they're a Blue Dog like Kendra Horn (women), David Scott (black), Henry Cuellar (Latino), Charlie Crist (gay, albeit semi-closeted) or Josh Gottheimer (Jewish). Many of them are in or have been in primaries against progressives who aren't in the identity group but would be a far better representative of the identity group. Let's take Kendra Horn, one of the 5 most right-wing Blue Dogs in Congress. She's against everything remotely progressive-- virulently opposes the Green New Deal, a living wage and Medicare for All, as 3 painfully obvious examples-- and she's running against progressive educator and college professor Tom Guild in Oklahoma City. It is easy-peasy to make the case that although Horn is a biological woman and will be promoted by very profitable women's groups, Guild is, by far, a better candidate for women.

The national minimum wage is the minimum amount per hour employers can now pay most workers. It increases only if Congress passes a bill and the President signs the legislation into law. To the detriment of working people, it has risen slowly over the decades-- it was last raised in 2009, with 2020 marking a record 11-year gap in increases. An increase in the wage to $15 an hour passed the House in 2019, but shamefully Horn was one of a tiny handful of Democrats who voted against raising it. When adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is 17% lower than it was in 2009, and 31% lower than it was at its peak in 1968. In 1968 the minimum wage put American workers in a position to pay their bills and survive solely on their paychecks. The slow deterioration of the wage now leaves many families unable to pay for their basic necessaries to survive. A living wage regularly adjusted for inflation will bring workers back to a comparable position they were in back in 1968 when they were able to cover their basic expenses every month. Who suffers most? Women and children, of course. On top of that poll after poll shows that it is women who overwhelming support Medicare-for-All and who support an end to endless wars. Horn has a voting record that is shockingly pro-war and anti-healthcare, Guild is anti-war and pro-healthcare... the exact opposite. I spoke to him this morning and we discussed these things and I hope I have his quotes correctly below. Please, if you like what he has to say, consider clicking on the Blue America thermometer and contributing what you can to his campaign.

Under no circumstances, should American troops fight in Iran without prior congressional approval. I’m deeply disappointed that Horn voted twice to give the current volatile and impulsive president or any president carte blanche to start another costly endless war in the Middle East. Enough is Enough! Women tend to be much more reluctant to engage in military adventurism.  Women are especially protective of their families, and do not want them to have their lives prematurely ended in another endless war. Many women consider health care to be the single most important issue affecting their health and welfare and that of their family members and friends. Horn’s refusal to support any particular plan to bring universal health coverage to the American people is disturbing. Her opposition to the one serious plan on the table is baffling and particularly harmful to the women she is charged with representing.

Horn has no serious plan for addressing climate change and the comprehensive and reasonable plan now on the table, with majority support among Americans, particularly women, Horn opposes. Although Horn took money from labor, she voted with Republicans against raising the minimum wage, and has no plan to make sure that all of the people in the fifth district make a living wage. Since American women make up the vast majority of low paid workers, Horn’s position hurts women and their families in their struggle for survival and dignity. Horn also opposed labor’s biggest agenda item this year by voting with the Republicans in the House in an attempt to defeat the Protecting the Power to Organize Act. Women are often greatly benefited by the representation of organized labor. With friends like her, labor and women do not need enemies.

What can we do to make people’s lives better, now and after the pandemic has run its course of destruction? We can provide clean water and air by seriously pursuing ambitious climate action. By pursuing a path of renewable energy, we can create millions of good paying jobs as we repair and restore our environment. We can provide paid family leave and childcare. Rising costs in this area were eating family budgets alive, even before the current health and economic crisis. We can ease the burden on hard working parents and help them care for their most important assets, their children. Seniors are overwhelmed by the skyrocketing price of prescription drugs. By lowering drug prices, we can ease the strain on their finances and improve their peace of mind.

Two Blue America Candidates Speak Out On Healthcare: Dana Balter And Tom Guild

The pandemic has forced progressive candidates to change their means of reaching voters. David Wasserman, writing yesterday for the Cook Report, noted "As the COVID-19 outbreak forces more states to delay spring primary and runoff dates, it's had another, more subtle effect: it's all but frozen the House recruitment process in place and curtailed fundraising, benefiting incumbents and candidates who had already built large war chests and disadvantaging recent entrants." It's especially helpful to conservatives-- on both sides of the aisle. Dana Balter is battling Trump boot-licker John Katko, who had already raised $1,545,336 by the December 31 FEC reporting deadline. Balter's haul-- before the pandemic struck-- was $519,225. Similarly, Oklahoma City Blue Dog Kendra Horn-- a conservative who votes with Trump more than nearly any Democrat in Congress-- had raised $2,277,970 both the end of the quarter and before her progressive primary challenger, Tom Guild jumped into the race.

This week, both Balter and Guild worked to get their core messages on healthcare out. Guild sent an e-mail to Oklahoma City voters. "In this time of national crisis," be began, "we must achieve a degree of isolation, interrupted by an occasional trip to the grocery store, to the pharmacy, and to fill up our vehicles with gas. We do our best to care for others at a distance by contributing to charities and via social media. During this stark and sober time let us reflect on how to improve America as we eventually resume some semblance of normalcy. This emergency is partially a result of a health care system, that really isn’t an integrated system, but a patchwork of institutions and industries focused on maximizing profits. As we transition to universal healthcare in America via Medicare for All, we will put in place an integrated system that is not profit-driven but focused on the health and wellbeing of every American. Deductibles and co-pays will be phased out and the per capita spending for healthcare will very likely be reduced." He continued:

“A government-run, single-payer system may be run with just enough resources for normal times... but unlike the patchwork, for-profit ‘system’ we have, a publicly run system can be ramped up much more quickly to meet crises such as this one.” (Paul Crist)

We face the current crisis woefully unprepared to meet the tremendous challenge before us. We can learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to not be placed in this situation again. As the only candidate for Congress in Oklahoma’s Fifth Congressional District embracing universal health care coverage by adopting MFA, it makes a difference which candidate we nominate and that we elect to represent our district.

Stay safe. Keep your distance. Keep the faith. Take care of yourself and others.

If you would like to financially support our effort to achieve systemic and meaningful change for the future you can do that [by clicking on the Medicare-For-All thermometer on the right].


Vote like your life and health and that of your fellow Americans is at stake.

Yours in the cause,

Tom Guild

Balter was more fortunate, as the Syracuse Post Standard decided to publish her commentary with its message to NY-24 voters and it was able to reach far more voters and potential contributors.

We’re experiencing a crisis unlike anything in our living memory; the toll on our health, lives, and economy will be immense. We all need to do our part to keep our communities safe and we need our leaders to step up and take action to limit the pandemic’s impact.

I have talked with countless people across central and western New York whose lives are being turned upside down. There was the friend who found an elderly couple in their car in the grocery store parking lot, crying because they needed food but terrified to go inside and be exposed to COVID-19. Then there was the owner of a 45-year-old family business who’s afraid it might not open again. Then there was the man recently diagnosed with stage 4 kidney cancer for whom the world is now unimaginably dangerous. These heartbreaking stories make clear that we must do everything we can to curb the effects of this crisis.

As individuals, we need to take social distancing seriously and closely follow expert guidelines from the CDC. Thankfully, as New Yorkers we have Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s steady leadership. His navigation of this near-impossible situation is extraordinary and will save lives and livelihoods. He exemplifies what we need from our leaders in this moment: calm, confidence and competence.

The governor’s example is made all the more remarkable by a complete absence of leadership from President Donald Trump. His failure to lead us through this crisis is staggering. At every stage, his response has made the situation far worse than it needs to be.

Trump ignored early warnings from his own intelligence agencies that the COVID-19 pandemic was coming. Despite knowing how bad this situation would get, for months he minimized the threat to the public and refused to take necessary action to prepare for the impending danger. The president has continued to downplay the seriousness of this crisis, last Tuesday suggesting that things will be back to normal in a matter of a couple of weeks while health experts have agreed that this will take months to address. Most disturbing is that he actively spreads misinformation about COVID-19, which is incredibly dangerous.

The idea that this is the leadership this country needs is not only absurd, it’s dangerous. And yet, this is the man Rep. John Katko endorses. This is the man John Katko insists has made us better off. This is the man John Katko tells us is the leader we need for another four years.

Trump’s calling himself a wartime president. Would a wartime president leave generals without stocked bases? While Trump dithers, hospital administrators and doctors, left without ventilators and personal protective equipment (PPE), are facing unimaginable ethical decisions about whom they should save and whom they should let die. Absurd. Would a wartime president send soldiers into battle without helmets and body armor? While Trump dithers, we are leaving our front-line healthcare workers unprotected without PPE. So we are sewing face masks at home to donate to hospitals and clinics and nurses are wearing garbage bags because “it’s better than nothing.” Dangerous.

Government must prioritize the health and safety of our people. The president should immediately use the Defense Production Act to direct companies to manufacture ventilators and PPE and distribute that equipment. This is necessary to address two dire circumstances: 1. there isn’t an adequate supply of this vital equipment, and 2. currently states are competing with each other for access to the scarce supplies available.

Thankfully, Congress has turned its attention to addressing the economic fallout of this public health crisis. The response must include substantial cash assistance to individuals and families. We have to ensure speedy arrival of funds and recognize that a one-time payment is unlikely to be enough. We should institute a freeze on all mortgage payments, rent, debt collection, and student loan payments without interest or penalty. We must give massive support to small businesses to help them survive the weeks and months ahead. We do not need to bail out giant corporations; they have huge profits and bankruptcy protections that will see them through. Any assistance that is given to corporations must be contingent on: no bonuses or dividends for the duration of the loan; no stock buybacks; no lay-offs; honoring of collective bargaining agreements, a $15 minimum wage.

We’re dealing with the biggest public health crisis we’ve seen in a century and the resulting economic crisis. Both have been made worse by a stunning failure of leadership by the president, whom John Katko endorses. We have to rise above that failure in leadership. And we can. We have a long way to go but if we come together, we will get through this crisis. We all know that we are better than Donald Trump and now is the time to prove it.

Wendell Potter, was formerly vice-president for corporate communications at Cigna, a crooked insurance outfit. Today he's president of Business for Medicare for All. Yesterday The Guardian published a chilling piece he wrote, Millions of Americans are about to lose their health insurance in a pandemic. "The tragic effects of our battle with the novel coronavirus are seemingly endless. But arguably the most mind-blowing is this: the very pandemic that threatens to infect and kill millions is simultaneously causing many to also lose their health coverage at their gravest time of need." And he explained how and why:

Here’s how: the virus has caused a public health crisis so severe that people have been forced to stay home, causing businesses to shutter and lay off workers. And with roughly half of Americans getting their health insurance from their employer, these layoffs mean not only losing their income but also their medical coverage. In other words, just as our need for medical care skyrockets in the face of a global pandemic, fewer will have health insurance or be able to afford it. According to one recent report, the cost of treatment for Covid-19 can run around $35,000. As the patient in the report exclaimed: “I was pretty sticker-shocked. I personally don’t know anybody who has that kind of money.”

So, how did we get to such a dire place? Many will sadly lose their jobs over the coming weeks-- with one estimate projecting as many as 30%. And as they do, Americans are about to learn something horrifying: how irrational and irresponsible it is for so many to be dependent on employers for health insurance. Take it from me. I’m a former health insurance executive who once profited from this system. It’s time for it to stop.

America needs to finally get out of the business of linking health coverage to job status. Even in better times, this arrangement was a bad idea from a health perspective. Most Americans whose families depend on their employers for coverage are just a layoff away from being uninsured. And now, when many businesses are shutting down and considering layoffs, it’s a public health disaster. Across the country we’re seeing reports of layoffs in almost all industries. As we approach a global recession, some analysts suggest that a million or more US workers will lose their jobs in April alone. Consider what this means for health care in this country.

We’ve seen this before. During the last big recession, researchers at Cornell University found that 9.3 million Americans lost their health insurance between 2007 and 2009. Why? As people lost work, their employer-provided insurance went away. During this time, roughly six in 10 Americans who lost their jobs became uninsured. And this problem compounds itself. If the reason you lost your health insurance is that you no longer have steady employment, how are you now going to be able to afford monthly premiums for some other private health care plan? This problem becomes particularly acute when you consider that premiums for health plans sold on exchanges are projected to soar, as well, due to “unexpected Covid-19 costs.”

It’s worth noting that even in good times, the employer-based model fails to cover enough of us, with the number of Americans covered through an employer steadily dropping in general. Since 1999, the percentage of those with job-based coverage has declined by nine points. And it most certainly will drop like a rock in the coming weeks and months.

It’s now clear that this system cannot handle our current reality. With so many Americans sadly on the verge of unemployment, the number that will lose health coverage will be crushing. As we rebuild our country’s economic base and reimagine the roles various industries play in our new future, we must also begin a difficult conversation about health care. If we’re dependent on jobs in order to have it, a lot of us will be left out in the cold. And at a time in our nation’s history where more will need quality care than ever before, the human cost will simply be too much to bear.

Reminder: the men and women you'll find by clicking on the ActBlue thermometer above will take you to a list of candidates-- including but not limited to Tom Guild and Dana Balter-- campaigning on Medicare-for-All.

Dana Balter and Tom Guild

Blue America Congressional Endorsement In Oklahoma: Tom Guild

You may remember our old Oklahoma friend, Tom Guild, from the yeoman's work he did in the past to flip the Oklahoma City congressional district blue. He tilled that field assiduously for years, while the DCCC laughed and ignored him. Then, suddenly when it looked possible, the status quo Democratic Party  establishment stepped in and handed the blue wave nomination to one of their own, Kendra Horn. Horn immediately joined the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- the congressional manifestations of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. And her voting record has been excruciating. Only 2 House Democrats have worse voting records, Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY) and Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-OK). 231 Democrats + Independent Justin Amash have been voting consistently than Horn! She's been a waste-of-a-seat conservative backbencher and doesn't deserve reelection. The DC Democratic establishment freaks out if anyone challenges any of their coddled Blue Dog/New Dem freshmen. But Tom Guild just did exactly that. I asked him how he came to the decision to primary Horn. Here's his response. Please consider contributing to his campaign by clicking on the thermometer below.

A Bridge Too Far
by Tom Guild

To run or not to run for Congress, that is the question. These are the times that try men’s souls. I wish I could support Kendra Horn’s (D-OK) re-election, but there is a bridge too far between her conservative corporate voting record and my own progressive leanings. There is a gulf wider than the Gulf of Mexico between the way she finances her campaigns and the way I finance mine in an effort to rid the current system of big corporate and PAC money and massive out of control campaign spending for a job that pays $285,000 in salary and benefits Horn’s conservative corporate record

• Horn opposes Medicare for All and the gradual elimination of the private profit-driven health care insurance industry. I favor MFA and am deeply concerned about the many millions of Americans who have no health care coverage or are grossly underinsured. The overhead of the private insurance industry too often supports a bureaucracy that is rewarded for denying claims and leaving often desperate policy holders in severe economic and physical distress. Reducing administrative red tape and going to a single payer universal health care system is the right thing to do. It will save trillions of dollars in short order and prevent the heinous prospect of millions of Americans going bankrupt if they face a costly medical emergency. Since the United States pays more than twice as much per capita for health care than any other leading developed country in the world, the savings in treasure, lives, and the increased peace of mind MFA brings is literally priceless for millions of ordinary Americans.

• Horn opposes the Green New Deal. I favor the principles of the GND which in short order will reduce carbon emissions by transitioning to renewable energy and literally save Planet Earth from becoming a dead and uninhabitable planet where life can no longer exist. The scientific community has by consensus determined that if we don’t act quickly the damage to our planet will soon be irreversible. To think that all life on earth will become extinct like the Dodo bird and the dinosaurs is chilling. We must forsake big contributions from the fossil fuels industry and not embrace short term political advantage that will ultimately destroy all life on earth.

• Horn voted against raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. I support a $15 minimum wage and more importantly will work to ensure that wages for all Americans keep pace and will always be at or above the level necessary to constitute a living wage. It’s easy to be hard when you make $285,000 a year on the backs of hard-working American taxpayers, but a living wage is the compassionate and reasonable path to follow. Americans shouldn’t work full time and still fall below the poverty level. A living wage is the right course of action and will strengthen American families and add rocket fuel to the U.S. economy.

• Horn and I disagree on many other important issues such as her recent vote against labor when she voted no on the PRO Act (Protecting the Right to Organize Act). The Act that passed the U.S. House in early February of 2020 gives workers more power during disputes at work, adds penalties for companies that retaliate against workers who organize and grants hundreds of thousands of workers collective bargaining rights they don’t currently have. It would also weaken right-to-work laws that in 27 states allow employees to benefit by union representation but forgo paying union dues.

• Horn solicits PAC contributions and benefits by “Leadership” PAC money, and Super PAC assistance, including from Dark Money sources. I refuse all PAC contributions and accept only individual contributions from Americans investing in our country’s future. I favor outlawing PAC contributions and transitioning to publicly financed campaigns for Congress. Horn took $422,000 from a single Super PAC in her last general election campaign. Her campaign kitty is chock full of millions of dollars in PAC and special interest money. She is milking the current corrupt campaign finance system for all its worth.

Because of her very conservative corporate positions on major issues and her dependence on PAC, Leadership PAC, Super PAC, including from dark money sources, and big special interest money, I cannot in good conscience fail to give the voters in the Fifth Congressional District of Oklahoma another option in the June 2020 primary. Sometimes duty calls and an obligation to serve your state and nation seeks you. Life does not always conform itself to our convenience. Because I love my state and nation, I have decided to challenge a very conservative corporate incumbent. If not me, who? If not now, when? Your support is not only welcomed but is essential to support this important mutual undertaking. Join us!

Bernie Is An Existential Threat To The Personal Class Interests Of The 1%-- They Will Never Support Him And He Doesn't Want Their Support

A new Economist/YouGov poll, out yesterday, shows Bernie with his first national double digit lead in their extensive surveys of American voters.

• Bernie- 30%
• Status Quo Joe- 20%
• Elizabeth- 16%
• Bloomberg- 11%
• Mayo Pete- 9%
• Klobuchar- 4%
• Tulsi- 4%
• Steyer- 1%

The poll also shows there are two candidates who large pluralities of Democrats do not want to see as the nominee-- Bloomberg (44%) and Tulsi (43%). When asked who could probably beat Trump, Democrats thought Bernie's the most likely.

Just as Pelosi was telling reporters that she is comfortable with Bernie as a potential nominee and that she doesn't think he would jeopardize the House majority, the NY Times published corporate shill Thomas Friedman's latest anti-Bernie screed favoring the status quo, the plaintive whine of the economic royalists. "If this election turns out to be just between a self-proclaimed socialist and an undiagnosed sociopath, we will be in a terrible, terrible place as a country. How do we prevent that? That’s all I am thinking about right now. My short answer is that the Democrats have to do something extraordinary-- forge a national unity ticket the likes of which they have never forged before. And that’s true even if Democrats nominate someone other than Bernie Sanders."

The South Carolina debate was too horrible to write about. All you had to know was that the Democratic Party sold all the tickets for between $1,750 dollars to $3,200 to understand why it was such an anti-Bernie/anti-Elizabeth audience, booing and screaming like animals-- the Bloomberg Bros in action. And speaking of Bloomberg, one of the debate "highlights" came from an oligarch slip of the tongue... "All of the new Democrats that came in and put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this president, I bough... I, I got them."

Well, Bloomberg didn't buy them all of course, but he did buy the ones who vote like Republicans. The one he's 100% responsible for-- literally she would NOT have won without Bloomberg money's last minute sneak attack-- was Oklahoma Blue Dog Kendra Horn. Horn beat GOP incumbent Steve Russell 121,149 (50.7%) to 117,811 (49.3%). Russell won massively in Pottawatomie and Seminole counties but in Oklahoma City, Horn scraped by and that's where most of the voters live. Horn out-spent Russell $1,184,294 to $885,831. But what won the election for her was a last minute $430,481 independent expenditure (TV advertising) by Bloomberg's Independence USA PAC. This was the Bloomberg ad that inundated Oklahoma City TV the week before the election, which had nothing to do with Congress, that killed Russell's reelection chances:





Horn, of course, m immediately started voting with Republicans against anything and everything that smacked of progressivism. Within a month of being sworn in, she already had an "F" rated voted record! Today there are only 2 Democrats-- fellow Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi and Joe Cunningham-- who have worse records! Since getting into Congress, she's voted more conservatively than conservative Republican Thomas Massie and her record is more similar to Republican Brian Fitzpatrick's than it is to even almost any Blue Dog other than Brindisi and Cunningham. The Democratic Party would absolutely be better off without her. To Horn, union organizing and raising the minimum wage are communism.

In 2016 Bernie won the Oklahoma primary 174,054 (51.9%) to 139,338 (41.5%). But Bernie didn't just win in Oklahoma, he got more votes than Ted Cruz, who won the GOP primary and more votes than Trump (130,141), who came in second. As you know Trump went on to eviscerate Hillary in the general-- 65.3% to 28.9%. Needless to say, while Oklahomans were voting for Bernie and for change, Horn was fighting with all her Blue Dog strength to back Hillary and the status quo. A week or so after the election in 2018, when I covered Horn's shocking win, I noted that "there was no blue wave in Oklahoma. Democrats did badly in virtually every race but the stunning OK-05 Oklahoma victory. They lost a net of 3 seats in the state House, where there are now 76 Republicans and only 25 Democrats. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Drew Edmondson carried only 4 of 77 counties, but one was Oklahoma County which makes up 90% of CD-05. Although he lost the state by a 12 margin, he carried Oklahoma County by the same margin. His coattails did wonders for Horn, who carried Oklahoma County by a 2% margin. She sounds exactly like someone who will go straight to the backbenches, make no impact and be defeated in the next red wave, if not before."




Bloomberg's Independence USA PAC spent $38,123,497 bolstering Democrats in 2018 and not a nickel was spent on a progressive. Bloomberg was lying when he said he elected 40 members. 21 of the candidates he spent money on won. Only 2 of the 21 don't have "F" scores. These were the House races where they spent:

• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)- $5,096,135 -- F
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)- $4,459,937 -- F
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)- $2,910,081 -- F
• Steve Horsford (New Dem-NV)- $2,834,051 -- F
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MN)- $2,433,181 -- F
• Haley Stevens- (New Dem-MI)- $2,220,429 -- F
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)- $2,219,630 -- F
• Lauren Underwood (D-IL)- $2,159,925 -- F
• Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA)- $1,711,024 -- F
• Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)- $130,000 (+ $1,256,262 from Bloomberg's anti-gun PAC) -- F
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- $1,453,541 -- F
• Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN)- $1,335,517 -- F
• Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)- $1,320,323 -- F
• Mike Levin (D-CA)- $1,061,877 -- C
• Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)- $999,171 -- F
• Kendra Horn- (Blue Dog-OK)- $430,481 -- F
• Jason Crow (New Dem-CO)- $244,583 -- F
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)- $130,879 -- F
• Chrissy Houlahan (Blue Dog-PA)- $212,766 -- F
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- $646,755 -- F
• Donna Shalala (New Dem-FL)- $162,289 -- C

• Nancy Soderberg (FL)- $1,624,107-- Lost
• Carolyn Long (WA)- $1,260,858-- Lost
• Carolyn Bourdeaux- $1,050,921-- Lost

Bloomberg and his sleazy PAC didn't help any of the good freshmen of course-- none of the ones with "A"- or even"B"-rated voting records like AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Andy Levin, Ilhan Omar, Chuy Garcia, Mary Gay Scanlon, Veronica Escobar, Sylvia Garcia, Deb Haaland, Madeleine Dean, Jahana Hayes... So when he said "all," he was lying, as he tends to do in a very Trumpian mode, the way entitled billionaires always lie. And when he said he bought 40, he was also lying. He only bought half that number. The shitty candidates in red are the ones who have already endorsed Bloomberg by the way.

How Many Seats Will Democrats Lose If They Impeach Trump? How Many Seats Will They Lose If They Don't?

In his NY Times column yesterday, Charles Blow came out strongly for impeachment. Of the redacted Mueller report-- I assure you that unlike most Republican members of Congress, that Blow has read it-- he notes that "it is a damning document. Not only does it detail Russian efforts to attack our election to help the Trump campaign and the Trump campaign’s eager acceptance of that help, it paints a picture of Donald Trump as an unethical man with no regard for the rule of law. In this report, we see a president who doesn’t deserve to be president. We see attempts over and over to obstruct justice, which in some cases succeed. The question is: What are we going to do about it?"

Yes, that is the question. "Obstruction of justice is a crime," he reminds his readers. "If Trump committed that crime, he’s a criminal. Are we simply going to allow a criminal to sit in the Oval Office and face no consequence?" We? We can't do much about it besides trying to influence our members of Congress to go for impeachment. If Pelosi and Hoyer bring it up, they would need 118 votes to begin the process. Pelosi knows how to count votes. She's says there aren't that many behind it yet. I believe she could whip her caucus and get the votes, but there are an awful lot of Democrats who will vote with the Republicans against impeachment. You think Pelosi wants a situation where all the progressives and activists decide to not vote for dozens of her incumbents because they voted against impeaching Trump? She doesn't.

Let's look at some of the worst Democrats in the House, freshmen Kenda Horn (Oklahoma City-- R+10), Joe Cunningham (Charleston, South Carolina-- R+10), Jefferson Van Drew (South Jersey-- R+1) and Ben McAdams (Salt Lake City area-- R+13), all of whom have tough reelection races coming up in red or in Van Drew's case, red-leaning, districts. Imagine they voted against impeachment. Let's start with McAdams, a Blue Dog like the other 3, he's tied with Van Drew and Cunningham of having the worst voting record in the House. Of the 269,234 votes cast in his district in 2018, he won 134,964, 694 more than his Republican opponent. He basically got slaughtered in Utah, Juan and Sanpete counties. All his votes came from Salt Lake County where a very significant number of Democrats are extremely progressive and already hating him. In the 2016 Democratic caucus in Salt Lake County, Bernie won 84.9% of the votes. Stop and think about that for un momento. Hillary-- who beat Trump 42.8% to 32.6% in the general election-- only took 14.1% of the vote in that blue county. People have to hold their noses and get drunk before voting for McAdams as is. Do you think they would if he voted against impeachment? Some would. How many wouldn't? More than 694? I think so. In fact I'm 100% positive than way more than 694 Salt Lake County Democrats would come out to vote for Bernie or Elizabeth Warren against Trump and not bother to vote for McAdams.

Do you want me to do this for all 4 of them? It's easy. I do one more-- Kendra Horn. Friends of mine in her district are already saying they won't vote for her in 2020. There were 238,960 people voting in 2018 and she took 121,149 votes (50.7%), 3,338 more votes than her Republican opponent. Nearly all her votes came from Oklahoma City. Pottawatomie and Seminole counties went massively for the Republican. Democrats in Oklahoma County are split between progressives and centrists. Trump beat Hillary in every single county in Oklahoma but she did less horribly in Oklahoma County than anywhere else-- 112,661 votes (41.2%) to Trump's 141,429 (51.7%). Primary time was a pretty even split in the district. This is how Hillary did in each of the 3 counties that make up the district:

• Oklahoma County- 50.1%
• Pottawatomie County- 37.5%
• Seminole County- 39.1%

I can tell you, some of those Bernie supporters-- and some of the Hillary supporters for that matter-- want impeachment more than Bernie does. If Horn votes against it, she'll lose enough of her base to lose the general. Besides, Republicans are already excited about former OK City mayor Mick Cornette and two state senators likely to run, Greg Treat and Stephanie Bice.

And so on. So, Pelosi is walking on thin ice-- I love this song and I can't help myself-- and she's screwed no matter what she does-- or doesn't do. Let me get back to Blow for a moment. He writes that his mind is made and he knows all the arguments: "I say impeach him." He lists all the wrong pros and cons though-- the solipsistic, intellectually sloppy ones-- and isn't looking at Pelosi's-- really, the House Democratic caucus'-- dilemma at all. "House Democrats, at least the leadership, are afraid of looking like they have a blood lust and inadvertently increasing Trump’s chances of re-election." But he's compelling:

I worry that inaction enshrines that idea that the American president is above America’s laws. I worry that silent acquiescence bends our democracy toward monarchy, or dictatorship.

As Thomas Paine wrote in 1776, “In America the law is king.” He continued: “For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

Who will we let be king in this country, the president or the law?

You can't argue with any of that. Maybe you can. I can't. Ask yourself this though. Is it worth impeaching Trump-- who won't be found guilt by the Senate-- at the cost of losing the House majority?

So what about censure-- a public reprimand or condemnation? The idea is being bandied about on Capitol Hill now. The Constitution defines impeachment-- and conviction-- powers but doesn't mention censure. Congress adopted a resolution allowing censure-- stronger than a simple rebuke, but not as strong as expulsion and either House can do it on their own. In 1834, the Senate censured Andrew Jackson-- although when the Democrats won back the Senate the censure was expunged from the record. In 1842, after the House failed to impeach John Tyler, a select Senate committee censured him. (He may have been a worse president than Trump-- maybe; we'll see-- and after his presidency he led Virginia into secession and then served in the Confederate House of Representatives.) In 1848 the House should have impeached James Polk for starting the Mexican-American War unconstitutionally, but they censured him instead. There was a half-assed attempt to censure Clinton that failed and there have been two censure motions introduced against Trump that have never been voted on, the first buried by Paul Ryan and the second buried by... Nancy Pelosi.

Is censure a viable option to use against Trump? A few congressmen have told me it is and it would pass. I think Trump would laugh it off, but that's better than nothing if they can't get the votes for impeaching him, which I don't think they can.

Will Conservative Freshmen Dems In Swing Districts Serve As A Road Block Against Medicare For All?

If she refuses to support Democratic policies, why should we care if she loses in 2020?

On Thursday, CNN had Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson on for a brief interview. When asked a process question about how she can win, her response stuck with me. "My strategy is not strategy. My strategy is that I seek to speak as deeply, articulately and passionately as I can what I see to be the deeper truths confronting our nation, challenging our nation to live up to them. I'm speaking from the depth of myself to the depth of the American in all of us. This is not strategy. The whole strategic mind is a mark of the corruption of the political system. I'm not trying to figure out what to say to get people to vote for me. I'm seeking to have the conversation that I believe we need to be having."

It drives me crazy to hear a debate inside the Democratic Party not on the merits of the legislative reforms that make people choose Democrats over Republicans-- above and beyond as a reaction against Trump and his enablers-- but about how it will play out in the career aspirations of usually conservative Democrats in marginal seats. If we pass progressive taxation will we be able to hold Blue Dog Kendra Horn's seat in Oklahoma City? Well, probably not, because Kendra Horn is a moron who doesn't have the faintest idea what progressive taxation is, let alone how to explain it to her constituents. Rather than learn, she just joined the Blue Dogs instead, where he brainless approach would be in supportive good company.

If Democrats pass Medicare-for-All will they be able to hold Blue Dog Mikie's Sherrill's seat in Morris County, New Jersey? Political pundit Ron Brownstein warns that perhaps not. He suggests, in fact, that the battle over single-payer health care "could become one of the principal crucibles in which the Democratic Party confronts its changing identity. It will test how a party increasingly drawn toward populist economics confronts the challenge of managing a political coalition growingly reliant on voters who are thriving financially and attracted to the party largely on cultural grounds. The Medicare for All debate sharpens that tension because the college-educated voters moving away from the GOP in the Donald Trump era overwhelmingly receive insurance through their employers-- and polls show that the vast majority of them are satisfied with that coverage."

Let me butt in here with a personal observation. Before I retired, I was a divisional president at TimeWarner. Long before I reached that status, attorneys for presidents and chairmen inside the TimeWarner conglomerate had negotiated eye-popping terms for their clients-- a class-- that included insurance. Without having to fight for it, my contract included the best private insurance available anywhere in corporate America. Better than what Ron Brownstein's happy suburban college-educated newly-mined anti-Trump Democrats have. And then I turned 65 and was forced off the plan and onto Medicare. And Medicare in every way-- except George Bush's deceit drug plan to benefit Big Pharma (Part D)-- is much better than private health insurance. I learned that after $2 million dollars worth of hassle-free (financially-speaking) cancer treatment from the best most cutting-edge specialist in the entire world, during which time Medicare never said "boo!" I have a feeling many of Ron Brownstein's happy suburban college-educated newly-mined anti-Trump Democrats will find out faster than he has about the drawbacks of even the best private insurance in comparison to Medicare.

I only see 10 freshmen on this list. Where the hell are the others?

The last version of Medicare for All had over 120 cosponsors. The new version, improved by Pramila Jayapal, came out of the shoot with considerably fewer. All but one of the Blue Dogs, Mike Thompson (CA), who signed on last year, for example, are missing. Now that there's going to be an actual vote on it, where are Lou Correa (Blue Dog-Orange County, CA), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-Nashville, TN), Adam Schiff (Blue Dog-Glendale, Burbank, Hollywood, CA), Sanford Bishop (Macon, Columbus, GA) and Filemon Vela (Blue Dog-Brownsville, McAllen, TX).

And these are the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are haven't signed on, at least not yet:

• Alma Adams (NC)
• Karen Bass (CA)
• Don Beyer (VA)
• Gil Cisneros (CA)
• Katherine Clark (MA)
• Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ)
• Angie Craig (MN)
• Elijah Cummings (MD)
• Madeleine Dean (PA)
• Rosa DeLauro (CT)
• Antonio Delgado (NY)
• Val Demings (FL)
• Lloyd Doggett (TX)
• Veronica Escobar (TX)
• Dwight Evans (PA)
• Marcia Fudge (OH)
• Sylvia Garcia (TX)
• Jared Golden (ME)
• Jahana Hayes (CT)
• Katie Hill (CA)
• Steven Horsford (NV)
• Hakeem Jeffries (NY)
• Joseph Kennedy III (MA)
• Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX)
• Andy Kim (NJ)
• Brenda Lawrence (MI)
• Dave Loebsack (IA)
• Zoe Lofgren (CA)
• Gwen Moore (WI)
• Joe Morelle (NY)
• Donald Norcross (NJ)
• Frank Pallone (NJ)
• Jimmy Panetta (CA)
• Katie Porter (CA)
• Debbie Musarsel-Powell (FL)
• Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE)
• Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA)
• Linda Sanchez (CA)
• Mary Gay Scanlon (PA)
• Jan Schakowsky (IL)
• Brad Sherman (CA)
• Darren Soto (FL)
• Bennie Thompson (MS)
• Susan Wild (PA)
• John Yarmuth (KY)

Many of them will eventually sign on as co-sponsors. Others are just in the CPC as ruse... to trick progressive voters back home, a trick CPC co-chair Mark Pocan uses to raise money (dues) and pad the membership roll so it looks like the CPC-- now stuffed with crooked New Dems-- is still the biggest Democratic caucus. Anyway, if any of these congresscritters are yours, call them at 202-858-1717 and give them a piece of your mind, especially the ones who campaigned on Medicare-for-All and got you to contribute to them or vote for them because of that.

Brownstein's piece in The Atlantic is about politicians unable to understand, let alone explain, the details of policy-- in this case Medicare-For-All and a bumbling Kamala Harris. Her stumbling answers during an interview this week, caused Brownstein to speculate that "the idea of trying to completely eliminate private insurance unnerves many veterans of the health-care fights under former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. After the ACA’s passage, Obama-- who had famously promised that those who like their insurance plan could keep it-- faced a huge backlash after only a few hundred thousand people in the individual insurance market were forced to give up coverage that did not meet the law’s standards. Ending private insurance would affect the 181 million Americans who today receive health insurance through their employers, according to census figures. The share of Americans who receive coverage through work is significant: about two-thirds of adults with a high-school diploma, three-fourths of those with a two-year college degree, 87 percent of those with a four-year degree, and 90 percent of those with graduate education. Not surprisingly, that means extremely large percentages of adults receive health coverage through their employers in many of the affluent suburban districts that powered the Democratic takeover of the House last November.

More than four-fifths of the population receives employer-provided coverage in a wide range of districts that Democrats flipped from the GOP in 2018, including suburban seats in Northern Virginia and New Jersey, and seats in Chicago, Minneapolis, and Detroit, according to census results. And roughly three-fourths receive health insurance through their employers in districts that Democrats won elsewhere: in northeast Iowa; Irvine, California; Salt Lake City; Virginia Beach, Virginia; and the suburbs of Richmond, Virginia; Atlanta; Des Moines; Kansas City, Kansas; and San Diego. By contrast, in the much more working-class New York City district won by the liberal champion Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, just 56 percent of the residents have employer-provided insurance.

Very few of the winners in these suburban seats endorsed the single-payer idea, as the journalist Libby Watson has tabulated. (The law professor Katie Porter, who beat Republican Mimi Walters for the California seat centered on Irvine, was one of the rare exceptions.) And many longtime Democratic health-care experts are dubious that most of these suburban members would ever vote to eliminate private health coverage for their constituents-- especially when the options of allowing younger adults to buy into Medicare or creating a more robust public option could also substantially expand coverage without provoking as much of a potential backlash.

[Watson's analysis, used by Brownstein, is nearly worthless since counting was far from over when she wrote it and several races were won by Democrats who back Medicare-For-All after it was published.]

...[I]t’s clear that single-payer advocates are gathering more momentum than ever before in the party. In addition to Harris, Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cory Booker-- all either announced or likely 2020 presidential candidates-- have endorsed the legislation from Sanders (a possible candidate himself) to eliminate private health insurance and replace it with a single government-run system. Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington is expected to introduce similar legislation in the House soon, with co-sponsorship from about half of the Democratic caucus.

The single-payer idea is also attracting increasing interest from organized labor, which historically has been ambivalent about proposals that would eliminate its role in delivering health-care benefits for its members. “There’s lots of discussion about this,” says one high-ranking union official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “The only real resistance is from Building Trades and Teamsters who administer big health-care plans and have mixed feelings. They’re torn between cost increases and a legacy sense of the importance of being the source of member insurance. If Dems move Medicare for All, unions will likely push it strongly.” Groups that advocate for single payer are mobilizing to build awareness of the policy: The National Nurses United union, one of the leading supporters, is organizing dozens of events across the country in early February.

Polling consistently shows that Democratic voters’ initial reaction is to support these ideas. In the latest monthly health-care tracking poll by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, four-fifths of Democrats (and 56 percent of all adults) said they supported “a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare-for-All, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan.”

But the same survey found much more hesitation, even among Democrats, when respondents were told [lies] that such a plan could mean higher taxes, longer waits for treatment, and the elimination of private insurance companies. Support among the general public in the Kaiser poll plummeted to just 37 percent when respondents were told it could eliminate private insurance companies. Support sagged to the same level when respondents were told it could require most Americans to pay more in taxes. Only one-fourth still backed the idea if it meant longer wait times for care.

Most self-identified Democrats still supported the proposal when told it would eliminate private health insurance or require higher taxes, according to more detailed results Kaiser provided to me. But both possibilities roughly doubled opposition among Democrats, to about two in five. And a substantial majority of Democrats, nearly two-thirds, said they would oppose single payer if it meant longer waits.

The shifts were even more dramatic among the broader population of college-educated whites, whom Democrats increasingly rely on in elections, and the working-class whites whom the party is hoping to pry back from Trump. Support from both groups dropped to only 34 percent when respondents were told private insurance could be eliminated, and to about one in four when they were told single payer could mean longer waits. Higher taxes were less of a deal breaker for college-educated whites: 45 percent of them (compared with only about one-third of non-college-educated whites) said they would still support single payer if it required more taxes on most Americans, as analysts have estimated it would. (Supporters argue that while the system shifts costs from employers and consumers to the government, it would increase efficiency by squeezing out insurance companies and reduce the nation’s overall level of spending on health care.)

The Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who has polled extensively on health care, says the Kaiser results-- and the findings of his own recent survey for the advocacy group Protect Our Care-- underscore the turbulence in the health-care debate, especially after the defeat of GOP efforts to repeal the ACA. “I don’t think there is a settled opinion on this,” Garin says, referring to the single-payer idea. “And there are definitely serious questions that the supporters of Medicare for All will have to navigate. But I think there is an openness to significant change in the way people receive their health-insurance coverage.”

In the near term, Garin says, Democrats don’t need to resolve these questions: His survey, like the Kaiser poll, found that voters, including Democratic partisans, want Congress to focus this year mostly on defending and improving the ACA-- for instance, by maintaining patient protections and doing a better job of controlling costs.

“People want a conversation about universal coverage,” says Leslie Dach, the founder and chair of Protect Our Care. “But this is a complicated issue. Do people fully grasp what it means for their employer insurance, what [it means] for other aspects of the health-care system? At the same time, there’s a critical agenda that is in front of the Congress today that is straightforward and hugely meaningful.”

But the longer-term debate over the party’s direction on health care, sharpened by Harris’s declaration on Monday, looms as a probable centerpiece of the party’s 2020 nominating contest. Several likely candidates, including Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have already signaled they will propose more incremental changes to expand coverage. In Garin’s survey for Protect Our Care, Democrats split exactly in half on whether they want the party to pursue reforms that build on the existing employer-based system or replace it entirely with a single-payer structure.

How that debate sorts out-- through the 2020 primaries and beyond-- will gauge the new balance of power among Democrats, as the party still envisions itself as the voice of the struggling, but represents a growing number of the comfortable.

The corrupt establishments of both paries-- not the essence of the parties, their establishments-- are exactly the same kind of toxic garbage. Don't think the Democratic garbage is better than the Republican garbage. Without values and ideals, the two parties are just self-serving careerists. I don't care about Mikie Sherrill's or Kendra Horn's or Jeff Van Drew's careers. I care about the policies they will kill while putting their careers over the interests of the American people. Watch this new short video about the former president of her college's Young Republican Club and GOP operative, all the way through: