Sunday, October 04, 2020

Voter Rejection Of The Republican Party Will Be Massive-- But How Massive?

>

 


I've been writing a lot about Trump's electoral toxicity and how his defeat is going to crash the Republican Party-- losing them the Senate, dozens more House seats and even more dozens of state legislative seats, including flipped chambers. But how do we know? I mean it makes sense that what we see coming is an anti-red tsunami not just an anti-Trump tsunami and that voters are going to take out his enablers as well as him. You see it among the Lincoln Project GOP elites for example, where they are churning out anti-Trump ads and ads aimed at vulnerable Republican senators who have made it possible for Trump to go on a 4 year rampage of destruction. Like the Lindsey Graham one below or this one, not even released yet, for Alaskans





A little tangent: Billy Ray's docu-drama, The Comey Rule. There's no breaking news and nothing we don't already know. But Brendan Gleeson's Trump is nothing like the comedy version Trumps we see from Alec Baldwin, John Di Domenico and J-L Cauvin. Gleeson's Trump uses a repulsively ugly exterior to give insight into an even more repulsive and more ugly interior. If you haven't seen it, you really should, particularly the second episode, which is the Trump episode. Billy Ray portrays Trump as a demented, self-obsessed, psychologically impaired Mafia boss.

In a lengthy Politico essay over the weekend, Fed Up in Flyover Country, Anna Gronewold wrote that growing antipathy for Trump among people who voted for him in 2016 "isn’t necessarily about a policy or a broken promise, it’s about Trump as a person. Trump’s bare-knuckled personality-- which was on full display at the Tuesday debate-- has been his calling card. He has said things that no one else dares, and his base loves him for it. But for this group of former supporters, Trump’s personality has become his biggest liability." She wrote how some of them, actual Nebraska conservatives (not neo-fascists who crave authoritarianism, Trump's actual base) believe "that their highest elected official must display a sense of decorum worthy of the White House. Very simply, Trump offends a deeply ingrained culture of politeness and compromise that, until recently, earned Cornhuskers the very vanilla tourism slogan 'Nebraska Nice.' They are generally not on the news screaming at protesters, waving confederate flags or brandishing firearms wildly. At its core, Nebraska Nice isn’t so much a syrupy sweetness but rather a shared aversion to petty and therefore unproductive conflict... Progressive Democrats on the coasts might expect a break with the president to be driven by disagreements over Trump administration policies that have enraged and animated their own opposition-- immigration, climate change, for example. But the discrepancy-- between a culture of polite coolness and a president who tweets out political punches all day in all caps-- is more rooted in the foundational moral principles of a state where more than half of adult residents rank as 'highly religious' and many adhere to an ethic of commonsense collaboration that persists, in part, due to a collective memory from when their forebears worked together to survive harsh Great Plains winters."





National Journal reporter Josh Kraushaar-- 100% conservative establishment-- wondered about the same question when he sat down to write The October of Doom for Republicans yesterday. First the easy part: how Trump is going down hard: "Arrogance and ignorance are a toxic combination in politics. This week’s case study: The Trump administration’s inability to showcase basic competence and prudence in the middle of a pandemic has crippled the president’s already hobbled campaign, as time for a miraculous turnaround is expiring. President Trump, 74, is now hospitalized at Walter Reed Medical Center with coronavirus, taking a cocktail of therapeutic medicines in hopes of avoiding a worst-case outcome. He will be quarantined from the campaign trail for at least two weeks, serving as a real-life example of the consequences of shamelessly flouting the best medical and public-health guidance from his own government. Worse yet, he’s endangered the health of his colleagues and closest supporters, including well-heeled donors who gathered with him at an exclusive New Jersey fundraiser Thursday, even as he knew he had been exposed to the coronavirus. In a way, the immediate political implications will be inconsequential. Already trailing Joe Biden badly in the polls, it’s downright implausible that Trump will win any persuadable voters after this week of recklessness. Remember: The week began with news of Trump’s tax avoidance, and nearly ended with controversy over his unwillingness to forthrightly condemn white supremacism. Sandwiched in between was an embarrassing, self-destructive debate performance. Then coronavirus came to the White House."
Will the bottom fall out for Republicans, as it did in polling over the summer as he proved himself unable to control the pandemic? That’s a known unknown, complicated by the uncertainty of the president’s long-term prognosis. It’s possible that Trump could benefit from some obligatory bipartisan sympathy as he recovers from his illness. But for a campaign that isn’t planning to stop its negative attack ads during this national moment of crisis-- even as the Biden campaign stood down, showcasing some much-needed empathy-- it’s hard to see any groundswell of support boosting the incumbent.

Transfer of Power by Nancy Ohanian

Here’s the reality: The closing theme of the campaign, whatever remains of it, will be centered squarely on the pandemic. That’s one of Trump’s weakest issues, according to public polling, and he will be living proof of his vulnerabilities on that front. Republicans will presumably rush to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett before the election even though at least three more GOP senators have contracted coronavirus. That will make the proceedings look even more partisan... One Trump adviser told National Journal that the president’s allies are now desperately looking for scraps of encouraging political news-- like latching onto an outlier poll showing the race within 3 points-- to build a safe space against the doom-and-gloom reality.

Democrats now need to just get out of their own way. The Biden campaign’s exhortation for staff not to express any candid thoughts on social media is a good summation of what ails the opposition. Just like Biden and running mate Kamala Harris didn’t want to answer whether they support packing the Supreme Court, the campaign doesn’t want the world knowing what their staffers’ true feelings are about the present crisis. It’s a reminder of how the scourge of social media-- not everything that you think needs to be shared!-- is more of a curse than a blessing, even in more-normal political times. But it’s also why Biden has been the ideal Democratic candidate for this unique moment. The famously impulsive politician has become, thanks to his old-school nature, resistant to the ideological fads and Twitter-driven insanity that plague so much of our politics right now.

Despite all the chaos, the trajectory of the race is unlikely to change significantly in the final few weeks. The biggest consequence of the October of Doom will be that it’s getting even tougher for battleground-state Senate Republicans who have latched themselves to Trump to sound like credible messengers in this moment of crisis. Senate Republicans have a path to maintain a narrow majority, but a worst-case outlook where they lose most of the competitive races is now looking more plausible.

Sign of the times: In the bellwether North Carolina race that may determine the Senate majority, Sen. Thom Tillis tested positive for coronavirus on Friday and Democratic opponent Cal Cunningham admitted to an extramarital affair later the same day. Pick your poison in November.





Labels: , , ,

Thursday, June 25, 2020

Will Trump Leave Office Peacefully?

>

Just Beneath The Surface by Nancy Ohanian

LOL!

I know I'm always complaining how Inside-the-Beltway political writers are overly cautious and weeks behind in their prognosticatin'. Well... National Journal's Josh Kraushaar surprised me this week: Prepare For A Biden Landslide. Unless Trump figures out how to steal the election, Kraushaar is probably right on point. His set up was that Trumpanzee's Tulsa rally was a bust-- "empty seats, a canceled outdoor event, and a rambling speech that failed to land many punches against Joe Biden"-- and a "foreboding sign that his once rock-solid base is softening in the run-up to the election. Dealing with the triple threat of a pandemic, frayed race relations, and a battered economy, even some of the president’s supporters are questioning whether he’s up for the job." The latest Fox News poll shows Trump losing by 12 points, "the latest hint that some of the president’s closest allies are starting to lose the faith."

While his support among some rural and evangelical voters is getting shakier, for a president, wrote Kaushaar, "who has relied on a base-first strategy at all costs, hoping to win reelection without courting new voters, even the slightest slippage among rock-solid Republicans is alarming" and he asserts that while the revelations from Bolton’s new book may not matter to Trump’s hardcore base, "there are plenty of softer Republican voters already close to breaking away."
So what does it all mean for the November election? Right now, it looks more likely that Biden will win a landslide victory, picking up states uncontested by Democrats in recent elections, than it is that Trump can mount a miraculous turnaround in just over four months. Even as Trump tries to advance a law-and-order pitch amid growing violence and tumult in the nation’s cities, it’s unlikely to benefit the president because he’s the leader in charge. The chaos candidate is now the chaos president. Biden is the challenger pledging a return to normalcy.

Just look at the swing-state map: Biden is leading in every battleground state, according to the RealClearPolitics polling averages, with the exception of North Carolina where the race is tied. Trump trails by 6 points in the electoral prize of Florida, where the president’s newfound willingness to meet with Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro prompted a fierce backlash and quick White House retreat. He’s down 4 points in Arizona, a state that has only voted for a Democratic presidential candidate once since 1964. He’s not close to hitting even 45 percent of the vote in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin-- the Midwestern states he flipped to win the presidency.

Meanwhile, the Trump campaign is airing ads in Iowa and Ohio, two states he won by near double-digit margins in 2016, as recent polls show Trump in precarious shape in both states. Public polling even shows Biden within striking distance in Georgia and Texas, two electoral prizes that would normally be safely Republican ... unless a big blue wave hits in November.

Right now, Biden leads Trump by 10 points in the RCP national average, a greater margin than former President Obama’s 7-point landslide victory over John McCain 12 years ago. A best-case Biden scenario would net him 413 electoral votes, which would be more than any presidential candidate since George H.W. Bush’s rout of Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Trump made history in 2016 with his stunning come-from-behind upset against Clinton. He’s at risk of making a different kind of political history unless he’s able to suddenly turn his fortunes around.
Two questions flow out of this newish conventional wisdom:

1- how big powerful will the reverse coattails be,.meaning how many seats will the Republicans lose in Senate, House and legislative races? and

2- what if Trump refuses to acknowledge defeat?

We'll be dealing with the House races over the next few weeks but in terms of the Senate, a "Biden landslide" (a misnomer since Biden has nothing to do with it whatsoever) is likely to yield the Democrats seats in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Montana, North Carolina, Iowa, possibly Kansas, Alaska, Kentucky, South Carolina and one-- or even two-- Georgia seats.



As for the second question... Verdict published a worthwhile post by Neil Buchanan, a legal scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law, yesterday, Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Good News. He's optimistic that Trump will lose in November but decided to discuss what he calls the inevitability of a Trump coup attempt, given that "Trump will stop at nothing to hold onto power." He's been worrying that only a handful of national commentators have finally started to say that Trump will refuse to accept losing, "even as most commentators and Democratic politicians were pretending that the election will be fair and that Trump will leave office peacefully."
And it is not as if people have not been warned. More than a year ago, Trump’s former “fixer” Michael Cohen stated plainly that “there will never be a peaceful transition of power” under Trump. Perhaps because Cohen is otherwise such a pathetic character, but more likely because people prefer to deny what they cannot face, that warning was soon forgotten.

In my Verdict column earlier this month, I imagined what would happen if a news reporter were to take my warnings seriously and try to get Republican politicians to affirm on the record that they would stand up to any attempt by Trump to defy the will of the voters. What would those Republicans say, given that they could never admit that they would abet him when it came time to stealing the election?

My prediction was that those politicians would feign outrage, denouncing the reporter for even asking such a question. We soon, however, saw an unexpected test run, when an enterprising reporter (Grace Panetta of Business Insider) asked a long line of Republican U.S. senators to comment on Trump’s gassing of protesters on his way to defiling a Bible as part of a political stunt near the White House.

It turned out that these senators could not even be bothered to answer the question at all, much less muster the energy necessary to fake a bit of righteous outrage. Most of the Republicans ignored the reporter entirely or claimed not to know what had happened.

This suggests that, if asked a hypothetical question of the sort that I imagined regarding a Trump coup, Republican senators would simply stare blankly and walk away. If they cannot even be roused to say something when the President of the United States abuses his powers to violently stop citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights, why would they say anything to warn Trump not to shred the rest of the Constitution?

Our Institutions Are Only as Strong as the People Who Inhabit Them

One possible answer to my question about how the American political system would respond to Trump’s refusal to accept losing is to treat that system as a disembodied machine that was perfected and handed to us by the nation’s founders. Trump will not succeed, the argument goes, because “our institutions” will not allow him to do so.

...What we know is that Trump is willing to fire prosecutors, to mobilize military troops, to abuse the courts, and to claim that everything that has happened to him is corrupt. He simply will not go, and his coup will not begin and end on Inauguration Day.

Indeed, one of the things that Trump and his supporters have been doing for years now is to coopt the word “coup” as a preemptive move, to drain it of all meaning. Indeed, they now use that word to describe any situation in which Trump is opposed via legal means. The Mueller report was supposedly an attempted coup, Trump’s impeachment was similarly an attempted coup, and pretty much everything else is a plot to take away Trump’s “landslide” victory in 2016. “Coup,” in their mind, means “Trump not being President anymore.”

So Trump has already degraded the language by using against his enemies the very word that best describes what he is doing. And no matter how much wishful thinking Kaplan wants to engage in, Trump will spend every day trying to convince people that he is the rightful winner of the election, which will involve efforts never to get to the point where “everyone knows” that Trump lost and must leave when his term ends.

This can only be prevented if the people who work inside our institutions are actually willing to do what their roles demand of them. Trump, for his part, will do what is necessary to convince people that Biden lost.

In other words, no one is saying that Trump will say something like this: “I lost, but I refuse to accept losing. I’m not leaving.” It will be: “I didn’t lose, no matter what the evil press and the deep-state conspiracy says. Massive voter fraud! The courts are corrupt. Second Amendment people need to stop this coup!!” The idea is not to get people to defy the rule of law directly but to get enough of them to be confused about what the law requires that they do not even know who won. “I didn’t lose, I won,” Trump will shout. “The radical socialist Democrats are the ones who hate our beautiful Constitution.”

The Only Way to Stop It Is to Be Honest About It

As I also noted in my column earlier this month, there might not be any point in saying out loud what Trump is going to do, because there might be nothing that we can do in any case. If Trump is going to be abetted by his partisans, and given that he is willing to stop at nothing, maybe there is truly nothing to be done.

If that were true, then we would now be living in what we might as well call a “dead democracy walking.” We might not realize it yet, but our constitutional system might already have been fatally wounded and is simply in the process of bleeding to death. Not dead yet, but irreversibly doomed nonetheless.

As depressing as that is, it might be true. The only way for it not to be true, however, is for people to see clearly what is at stake. For the reasons that I noted above, many people (most definitely including Democratic politicians) have shied away from saying that Trump’s existential threat to the American experiment includes the possibility of an outright refusal to leave office peacefully.

Because I saw no reason to think that politicians, pundits, or reporters would be willing to speak this truth out loud, I concluded that we would be doomed by what amounts to a timing problem. That is, by the time that people were finally confronted with evidence that they could no longer deny, it would be too late to stop the worst from happening.

All of which brings us to my reasons for being at least a tiny bit optimistic about what might yet happen in this country. It turns out that people might be waking up now, which might give us a fighting chance to prepare to stop Trump before it is too late.

For one thing, I have been happy to learn that mine has not been the only voice warning about Trump’s unwillingness to accept losing. I have never been a fan of the pundit Bill Maher (for a variety of reasons), so I did not realize until someone told me recently that Maher has been sounding similar alarms about Trump for some time.

Moreover, at least some of my fellow academics have been working on these issues (much more effectively than I have, if I am to be honest). For example, the legal scholar Lawrence Douglas at Amherst College has now published a book-length inquiry into these questions, the title of which poses the key question: Will He Go? Trump and the Looming Election Meltdown in 2020.

...Here is a particularly helpful (if chilling) sample of his commentary:
[I]f we do fall into an electoral crisis and we start seeing the kinds of challenges to the results that we saw back in year 2000, during Bush v. Gore, then we could really see a meltdown because our contemporary political climate is so polarized. That’s what led me to start asking, what types of federal laws do we have in place? What kind of constitutional procedures do we have in place to right the ship?

And what I found is that they just don’t exist.
Professor Douglas points out that there are ways for the Electoral College to become a point of contention-- not (only) in the sense that it allows a person to become President with a minority of the votes (as in 2000 and 2016) but in the even more disturbing situation where state-level Republicans try to defy their own states’ voters by refusing to certify Joe Biden’s electors.

This could, in turn, throw the race into the U.S. House of Representatives, in which another anti-democratic feature of the Constitution would (even though Democrats are in the majority) allow Republicans to make Trump President again. (Hint: Every state gets one vote, not every member of the House.)

That all sounds pretty bad, and it is. Professor Douglas does, however, offer one concrete reason for hope-- and one that has caused me to rethink how I imagine the end of this year playing out. His Vox interview ends this way:
The only real way to avoid this is to make sure we don’t enter into this scenario, and the best way to do that is to ensure that he loses decisively in November. That’s the best guarantee. That’s the best way that we can secure the future of a healthy constitutional democracy.
...The Douglas hypothesis, however, points out that the nightmare scenario has a lot of moving parts, and larger voting margins make it more difficult for Trump and the Republicans to manipulate enough of those moving parts to pull off a coup. If, say, Florida’s voters choose Biden by 0.4 percentage points, it will be relatively easy for the Sunshine State’s Republicans to convince judges and others (as well as themselves) that the state need not certify Biden electors. But if they are willing to steal the election for Trump even if he loses by, say, 55-45, then we are already doomed. There is reason to believe that we are not there yet.

In the end, then, the decentralized nature of the U.S. system of voting makes it very, very important that Trump and the Republicans have as few avenues as possible to steal the election. That it is necessary to say to Democrats, “You can’t just win, you have to win big,” is a sad commentary on where we are today, but it is true nonetheless.

Perhaps the biggest reason, however, that I am feeling some sense of optimism that we might emerge from 2020 intact-- though surely battered and bruised as a nation-- brings us back to my comments above about the importance of all of us collectively emerging from the state of denial in which we have been living. Democrats need to stop politely refusing to call Trump out on his election-stealing intentions.

And lo and behold, Joe Biden himself has finally said it out loud. Less than two weeks ago, Biden appeared on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah and was as blunt as possible: “It’s my greatest concern, my single greatest concern. This president is going to try to steal this election.”

Biden also said this: “I am absolutely convinced [the military] will escort him from the White House with great dispatch” if Trump refuses to leave. Although that is the naïve framing that I described above (everything being in place on January 20, with Trump clutching the door frame of the Oval Office as he is dragged out), it is nonetheless notable that Biden was willing even to talk about something so seemingly extreme.

After all, Joe Biden might be the very embodiment of what has come to be known as “defensive crouch liberalism,” which is the habit of mind by which centrist Democrats lack the courage of whatever convictions that they claim to have, choosing instead not to fight and to preemptively compromise with their opponents (and then to give away even more during negotiations).

Al Gore was a gentleman who stepped aside in 2000 even though he had both facts and law on his side, all in the name of preserving the republic. No matter what one thinks of Gore’s choice, the only way to preserve the republic now is to fight. And with Joe Biden already sounding the alarm in early June, no one else has any reason to pretend not to see what Trump is up to from here on.

Things could still go very badly, as I will argue in the second and final part of this series tomorrow. But seeing Biden and the Democrats at long last stop pretending that this is business as usual should give us some reason to imagine that all hope is not lost. For now, I welcome even that highly contingent good news.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, May 15, 2020

Trump's Pandemic Policies Aren't Killing Enough People To Impact His Vote Totals, But It's The People Left Behind Who Will Get Their Revenge In November

>


Remember a couple of weeks ago when I was making fun of the professional prognosticators for rating Montana's Senate race a "lean Republican?" I predicted they would all be backing away from that foolishness by summer. It's still mid-May and the National Journal's Hotline Power ratings has already tipped Montana as a viable target for Democrats-- as well as both Georgia Senate seats!

In his Tuesday email, even Charlie "walking on eggs" Cook-- acknowledging the enormity of the implications of a Democratic takeover of the Senate-- ventured to say that the chance of the GOP holding onto the Senate majority, once 66% in Cook-world, is now a "50-50 proposition." For someone as overly cautious and conservative as Cook, that is tantamount saying the Democrats have a lock on a big win for the Senate races. "Now with popular Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock challenging GOP incumbent Steve Daines in Montana," he wrote, "newly-appointed Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler mired in a horrific political situation and the possibility that Republicans could draw an exceedingly weak candidate in what should be a safe seat in Kansas (filing deadline June 1), among other problems adding to previous woes with incumbents Martha McSally in Arizona, Susan Collins in Maine, Cory Gardner in Colorado and North Carolina’s Thom Tillis all in races that are, at best, toss ups. Combine those... with a recession that has effectively eliminated any tailwind that President Trump had been enjoying from a strong economy and it is hard to see his re-election prospects looking anything but more dire by the week. Today there is more than a one-in-three chance that Democrats will win a trifecta in November, the White House, the Senate and the House. The policy and governing implications are enormous." [This morning Cook speculated that both Georgia Senate seats may be competitive!]
Keep in mind that these outcomes are not independent of each other, a Trump victory would be more likely to be accompanied by retention of the Senate, a Trump defeat would raise the odds of Democrats taking over the Senate. This isn't 'coattails," (I don't believe in coattails), but the turnout dynamics, the issue agenda and priorities and the political environment that would exist to re-elect, or defeat Trump would also be in place for a Senate that is already teetering on the edge. Our system isn't quite parliamentary but is getting increasingly more so, the linkage is greater, the ticket-splitting diminishing.

It would be hard to overstate the importance that the combination of President Trump in the White House and a Mitch McConnell-led Republican Senate majority has had on shaping the Federal judiciary. Two U.S. Supreme Court Justices, 51 judges on the 13 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals and 138 Federal District judges have been confirmed under this Trump-McConnell combo, two more Circuit and 40 more district judges are in the pipeline, awaiting confirmation. As enormous as the consequences are and will be for a generation or two, the implications of yet another two or four years of Republicans controlling even more judicial nominations is enough to give most on the left or right heart palpitations, out of either joy or terror.

Moving beyond judicial nominations, the policy implications are incredible as well. Back in the day, one party holding the White House and a House majority but a razor-thin edge in the Senate would find itself greatly stymied, real limits on what they could accomplish. But now, with the threshold for most executive and all judicial confirmations down to a simple majority and the possibility of the filibuster being completely scrapped, the governing implications are head-spinning.  
And the unofficial mouth of Inside-the-Beltway conventional wisen, Josh Kraushaar, noted at the same time that "Republicans are growing increasingly worried that President Trump’s shaky political position will not just cost them the presidency, but also sweep in a Democratic Senate majority and further diminish their House minority. The latest round of polling shows the president losing to Joe Biden, as well as Democrats gaining ground in red-state Senate seats that once looked like long shots, from Georgia to Montana to Kansas. There’s a growing chance that Democrats may capture control of the Senate with a seat or two to spare."

Goal ThermometerIt's horrifying that Schumer has it rigged to make sure the new Democratic Senate majority is a dogged conservative, anti-progressive majority. There's still time do something about that in a few states, especially Colorado, where progressive Andrew Romanoff and conservative John Frackenlooper each is a sure bet to beat walking dead GOP Senator Cory Gardner. Schumer is doing all he can to paint Frackenlooper as inevitable. But he isn't and Romanoff is beating him by every metric but corporate cash, which has gushed into the Frackenlooper campaign. Please consider contributing to Romanoff and the other progressive Senate candidates by clicking on the 2020 Senate thermometer on the right and giving what you can. Back to Kraushaar:
The current political environment is reminiscent of 2008, two years after Democrats swept control of the House and Senate under President George W. Bush. It’s mostly remembered for Barack Obama’s historic election, but the Democrats’ downballot dominance was just as remarkable. Riding deep dissatisfaction with GOP leadership, Democrats expanded their Senate majority to a near filibuster-proof margin and won House seats in some of the most reliably conservative territory in the country.

Like the political environment today, the 2008 election took place in the middle of a national crisis. Back then, the Republican presidential nominee insisted that the fundamentals of the country were strong during a deepening recession. Now a Republican president is publicly insisting he has “met the moment” and prevailed, despite rising death rates and massive unemployment from the coronavirus. Then, as now, a Democratic challenger used the GOP candidate’s own words in devastating attack ads.

As the New York Times’ Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman wrote: “The two elections were effectively a single continuous rejection of Republican rule, as some in the GOP fear 2018 and 2020 could become in a worst-case scenario.”

Having covered the 2008 congressional campaigns closely, I’m also struck by how much in common that the two elections share. That year, Democrats netted eight Senate seats, sweeping comedian Al Franken into office while winning races in conservative strongholds such as Alaska and South Dakota as part of a big blue wave. Republicans didn’t even field a candidate in Arkansas, one of the most conservative states on the map. Mitch McConnell faced the closest race of his Senate career, barely defeating a not-ready-for-prime-time Democratic challenger.

“[My race] isn’t going to be a landslide,” McConnell told me at the time. “The president is not popular. The economy is certainly slow, so it’s a much more contested environment.”

Repeat McConnell’s words 12 years later and they hold true today. Look at the wider Senate map, and you can see eerie parallels. A poll conducted by Georgia Republicans shows the state’s senior Sen. David Perdue only polling at 45 percent, just 6 points ahead of Democrat Jon Ossoff. Perdue hasn’t been considered particularly vulnerable, but it’s now plausible to see him locked in a competitive race if the bottom falls out for the president. (This is the “other” Senate election in Georgia, which hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention as the special Senate election involving embattled GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler.)

The possibility of other red-state surprises are apparent: The emergence of conservative hard-liner Kris Kobach as a possible Senate nominee in Kansas is giving Democrats an unusual opportunity in a state that hasn’t voted a Democrat to the Senate in nearly 90 years. Gov. Steve Bullock’s entrance into Montana's Senate race is putting Sen. Steve Daines’s seat squarely in play. McConnell even faces well-funded opposition from another not-ready-for-prime-time Democratic challenger in the middle of another crisis. If Republicans lose even one of these red-state seats, the odds that Democrats win an outright majority in the Senate increases dramatically.

Another major storyline this year is the Republican Party’s inability to recruit credible House candidates, particularly in districts that Trump carried in 2016. Many freshman Democrats representing Trump districts aren’t facing tough Republican opposition. Twelve years ago, that dynamic was similarly apparent on the Senate side. Only one Democratic senator faced credible GOP competition that year-- Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu-- and she still coasted to victory over now-Sen. John Kennedy. Then-Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat, ran unopposed by Republicans in Arkansas, a state that John McCain comfortably carried.

...[R]ight now, Trump and his Republican party are in dire shape. The history of embattled presidents facing reelection during a worsening crisis doesn’t offer much comfort. Even Trump, always averse to uncomfortable truths, recognizes this.
In a series of half a dozen tweets this week, Paul Krugman asserted that the GOP has given up "on trying to control Covid and reopen the economy; the propaganda arm (Fox and worse) is going all in for conspiracy theorizing and virus trutherism. At one level this shouldn't be surprising. It's the same script the party has followed on climate change, and the virus truthers are a lot like the inflation truthers who insisted that we had runaway inflation under Obama. But what's going on now seems to involve a new level of political recklessness. Climate change takes place over decades; inflation truthers paid no political or personal price for being wrong again and again. But if the virus erupts, it will happen quickly. In other words, the GOP has in effect decided to ignore the science at the clear risk of being held accountable in the near future both for killing thousands and for wrecking the economy, because that's what a premature opening would do. Why take that risk? Partly they may be high on their own supply, no longer able to conceive that there is an objective reality that might be politically inconvenient. Partly I think it's because they know in their hearts that they can't actually do the job of governing. But anyway, we're witnessing a lethal abdication of responsibility whose consequences will be quickly apparent. It's truly awesome to watch."





Earlier today we saw what Republicans in control of the state legislature and state Supreme Court are doing to Wisconsin. It's as if they want to kill people! And in nearly every state where Republicans can, they are making the pandemic worse. Yesterday, writing for the NY Times, Trip Gabriel reported that GOP defiance of Pennsylvania's lockdown has 2020 implications. Pennsylvania has been horribly hit by the pandemic. There are 63,122 cases-- 6th worst in the country-- with 4,320 more confirmed cases yesterday and 4,931 cases per million in the population, the 11th hardest hit state by the metric. And although, predictably, Philadelphia has been hardest hit, cases have spiked in Trump counties as well. This list shows cases + Trump's 2016 percentage of the votes in the 15 worse hit counties:
Philadelphia- 19,093 cases-- Trump- 15.5%
Montgomery- 5,583 cases-- Trump- 37.6%
Delaware- 5,252 cases-- Trump- 37.4%
Bucks- 4,248 cases-- Trump- 47.8%
Berks- 3,530 cases-- Trump- 52.9%
Lehigh- 3,378 cases-- Trump- 45.9%
Northampton- 2,566 cases-- Trump- 50.0%
Luzerne- 2,477 cases-- Trump- 58.4%
Lancaster- 2,364 cases-- Trump- 57.3%
Chester- 2,008 cases-- Trump- 43.3%
Alleghany- 1,551 cases-- Trump- 40.0%
Lackawana- 1,256 cases- Trump- 46.8%
Monroe- 1,240 cases-- Trump- 48.1%
Dauphin- 895 cases-- Trump- 46.6%
Lebanon- 856 cases-- Trump- 65.9%
Gabriel reported that on Monday, addressing county lawmakers, Governor Tom Wolf slammed the GOP with "a stunning rebuke, as resistance to lockdown orders flares around the country." Wolf "a military metaphor to accuse Republican officials of desertion in the battle against the pandemic: 'To those politicians who decide to cave in to this coronavirus they need to understand the consequences of their cowardly act.'"
The normally mild-mannered governor’s comments turned up the temperature of a national debate over the health emergency, one fanned by President Trump as he eggs on protesters at state capitols, including in Harrisburg, and by lawmakers in Congress, where the government’s top health officials warned this week of dire consequences if the economy reopens too soon.

On Thursday, the president arrived in Pennsylvania, one of several battleground states crucial to his re-election, where the political combat over limiting the virus’s death toll or easing its economic devastation could have weighty consequences in November. While 26 percent of the state’s work force has filed for unemployment, the governor is relying on metrics about the virus’s spread to keep many people in their homes and all but “life-sustaining” businesses in populous regions closed.

Republicans, sensing a gut-level anger in exurban and rural areas after nearly two months of restrictions, see an issue with the potential to drive turnout by voters in a state where Mr. Trump, as elsewhere in the industrial and Midwest region, needs a surge of support to repeat his narrow victory of 2016. In Wisconsin, also a swing state, the State Supreme Court sided with Republicans on Wednesday and threw out the stay-at-home order of Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. In Texas, armed men have shown up to support businesses defying government orders to stay closed, an extreme sign of the politicizing of social distancing rules.

At the same time, polls show that Mr. Wolf, like other governors moving cautiously and heeding scientific benchmarks to reopen, is enjoying record support, including among many Republicans.

Mr. Trump seemed to address Mr. Wolf on Monday via Twitter. “The great people of Pennsylvania want their freedom now, and they are fully aware of what that entails,” he tweeted. “The Democrats are moving slowly, all over the USA, for political purposes.”

The governor’s accusation of cowardice was directed at officials in half a dozen Republican-led counties that have said they would defy his timeline for reopening businesses. Mr. Wolf has partly lifted restrictions on 37 counties, mainly in rural regions where community spread of the virus is more easily contained.

But with the rest of the state, including its populous southeast, still under a strict stay-at-home order through June 4, officials in some counties said they would ignore the governor and open up starting Friday.

“The health crisis is real, but the economic devastation is real also,” said Josh Parsons, a commissioner of Lancaster County, one of those moving to loosen restrictions despite not meeting all of the governor’s health benchmarks.

He described “chaos on the ground” as people openly disregarded stay-at-home orders in recent weeks. “People have been voting with their feet and going back to work because they have to,” he said.

Some Republican strategists said the issue of reopening Pennsylvania would add motivation to turn out for Mr. Trump against the Democratic Party in November.

“I’ve sensed a very, very strong backlash in, quote, the hinterlands,” said Charlie Gerow, a Republican strategist in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Trump narrowly carried Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes in 2016. To compensate for population growth and rising anger at his presidency in the Philadelphia suburbs, which lifted Democrats in recent elections, he needs higher support among white men, with and without college degrees.

“My sense is there is a significant number of voters who did not vote in 2016 for whatever reasons who will be voting for President Trump in 2020, and part of it is this overreach by Governor Wolf,” Mr. Gerow said.
Mr. Gerow may be on strong drugs. The pre-COVID Morning Consult Trump Tracker showed Trump having lost 11 approval points since his inauguration and his net job approval underwater 49-48%. Since the pandemic kicked in, Trump's numbers have submerged. The Real Clear Politics polling average shows Biden beating him 48.3- 41.8%-- a 6.5% spread. The most recent polling (last week in April) was conducted by a Republican polling firm, Harper. It shows 49% of voters ready to vote for Biden and just 43% ready for Trump. Only 23% of respondents say the disagree with Pennsylvania ordering all non-essential businesses closing under threat of criminal prosecution and only 14% disagreed with Pennsylvania closing all schools for the remainder of the school year. 16% disagreed with the governor's stay-at-home orders. I wonder if Mr. Gerow is ready for those odds.

Gabriel noted that "A survey released this week by the Washington Post/Ipsos showed that 72 percent of Pennsylvania adults approved of how the governor has handled the coronavirus outbreak, including 51 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Only 45 percent of all adults in the state supported Mr. Trump’s handling of the outbreak. In addition, seven in 10 Pennsylvanians said the United States should keep trying to slow the virus’s spread even if it means keeping businesses closed. Nearly half of Republicans agreed."
“I’m baffled by what the Republican game plan is here,” said J.J. Balaban, a Democratic strategist in Pennsylvania. “I guess they think this will rally their base, but it seems to speak to a narrow base that is already riled up, while alienating them from the kinds of voters they need to carry Pennsylvania.”

In Lancaster County, as well as others that have moved to reopen despite the governor’s orders, the rate of new coronavirus cases remains higher than 50 per 100,000 people over the previous two weeks, a target Mr. Wolf’s administration set for moving counties to a “yellow” phase of partial reopening. Lancaster County also has one of the highest death tolls in the state, with 183 as of Thursday.

Other counties where Republican officials vowed late last week to defy the governor include Dauphin, Franklin, Lebanon, Berks and Schuylkill, roughly the region from the Philadelphia exurbs west to Harrisburg. Some county sheriffs and district attorneys said they would not pursue businesses that opened despite the governor’s orders. On Wednesday, after Mr. Wolf warned that defiant counties would face consequences, Dauphin County’s commissioners backed down and said they would not unilaterally move to yellow status.

Mr. Parsons, the Lancaster County commissioner, and other local Republican officials argue that the county has met more important metrics for reopening than the growth of new virus cases, including the availability of intensive-care beds and ventilators in hospitals. Deaths are high because the county has many nursing homes, he said.

“We need to protect those people in nursing homes, but that doesn’t mean some people can’t safely and prudently go back to work,” Mr. Parsons said.

On Monday, Mr. Wolf threatened to withhold federal coronavirus relief money from counties that disobeyed him and reopened early.

He also told business owners who reopened too early that they risked losing certificates of occupancy, liquor licenses and insurance. “Insurance does not cover things that happen to businesses breaking the law,” he warned.





Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, May 11, 2020

This Is True: The Democratic Party Isn't As Bad As The Republican Party. But For How Long?

>


The Democratic Party establishment is conservative in the sense of defending and bolstering the status quo-- not as perniciously as the GOP, but perniciously enough. It is also incredibly corrupt-- no less so than the Republican Party. Of course there are notable exceptions-- like House members AOC, Jamie Raskin, Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal, Ted Lieu, Ilhan Omar, Andy Levin, Barbara Lee, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, a few others intermittently-- but they're exceptions. Last week, The Intercept published a piece that gets to the heart of the Democratic Party by Ryan Grim and Akela Lacy, New Jersey's Cartoonishly Corrupt Democratic Party Is Finally Getting Challenged. Before we get into it, I want to point out that New Jersey has a Democratic member of Congress who isn't corrupt and doesn't belong in a federal penitentiary-- Bonnie Watson Coleman, who represents the Trenton area.

Grim and Lacy start with Albio Sires, but could have started anywhere in the state other than, ironically, Trenton, the state capital that is one of the biggest founts of corruption on the planet. "A quintessential New Jersey game of musical chairs brought Albio Sires to Congress," they wrote. "The music started in November 2005, when Sen. John Corzine was elected governor. To fill his Senate seat, the party machine tapped Rep. Bob Menendez, which created an opening for Menendez’s House seat. Albio Sires, the mayor of West New York, had previously run for Congress in the 1980s as a Republican, but was by then also state assembly speaker and a loyal member of the Democratic machine. He won a special election in 2006 with 90 percent of the vote and has represented the North Jersey district, home to the largest Cuban diaspora outside Miami, ever since."

Party identification-- partisanship-- gets these scumbags elected. Simply put-- they're not Republicans, so they must be better or, at least, the lesser evil. It isn't always the case and one day, suddenly, the New Jersey electorate will wake up and switch their idea of partisanship and it will be too late for the Democrats to do anything about it-- even if they want to, which is far from likely. They hate their own reformers far more than they hate Republicans (who they can easily "do business" with). Bernie, to most establishment Dems, is a worse option than Trump. And AOC is more an enemy than any Republican. Both are too disruptive.

How AOC became the enemy of almost every Democrat in Congress


"Sires has kept a low profile," continued Grim and Lacy, "largely voting with the party on the House floor. It’s hard to measure obscurity, but fewer than 70 Democrats have served in the House as long as Sires, and suffice it to say that Sires has not managed to translate that seniority into a national profile or measurable power in Washington. Corzine, a Wall Street baron, was unseated by Republican Chris Christie after one term; Menendez remains in office, and both he and Corzine have escaped prison despite being the targets of federal investigators. Sires has hung on, but as New Jersey’s Cuban population ages and migrates south to Florida, his district has become more diverse, with growing Central and Caribbean American populations."
In South Jersey, the Norcross bosses, whose family has had a longstanding stranglehold on local politics, are holding on. George Norcoss, known as one of New Jersey’s most influential unelected bosses, holds an outsize influence over parts of the state legislature’s South Jersey delegation. An insurance executive, he’s been accused of pulling strings to benefit from a state corporate tax incentive program that came under federal investigation last year. His brother, Donald, represents parts of South Jersey in the U.S. House. Donald is a former labor leader who was elected to the state assembly in 2009. He was later appointed to fill a vacant state Senate seat, which paved the way for his eventual transition to Congress.

Now Sires, who did not respond to requests for an interview for this article, is facing his first serious primary election since 2006, from insurgent challenger Hector Oseguera, an attorney with roots in Honduras and the Dominican Republic who specializes in fighting money laundering. Oseguera, who attended Boston University at the same time as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but didn’t know her then, was one of the earliest volunteers on her 2018 campaign to unseat then-Rep. Joe Crowley in Queens and the Bronx.

Oseguera is part of a wave of challengers taking on the local machine in North Jersey. Sires, a functionary of the West New York/Union City machine, known as the Hudson County Democratic Organization, or, often, simply, “the Organization,” is just one of many targets, with a slate of six Hudson County Freeholder candidates allied with Oseguera challenging incumbents up and down the ballot.

Elsewhere in the Garden State, similar battles are taking place, as the coalescing of activist groups and insurgent candidates launches a statewide assault on the cartoonishly corrupt New Jersey Democratic establishment, which long considered itself immune from the biannual annoyance of elections. So immune that the party did nothing to shunt aside Menendez in 2018, even as he faced trial for corruption charges in the midst of his reelection. Little-known challenger Lisa McCormick, with next to no financing, stunned the party by winning 38 percent of the vote in the primary that cycle against Menendez, who got off on a mistrial due to a hung jury and won reelection.

Now McCormick, a perennial candidate for local and federal office who has never disclosed the names of any campaign donors, is challenging state Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman. Coleman was elected in 2014 as the state’s first African American woman in Congress and has a pretty solid progressive voting record.


Rep. Josh Gottheimer, among the most conservative House Democrats, is facing a serious challenge from Dr. Arati Kriebich, a neuroscientist and former Gottheimer volunteer. In South Jersey, Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a party boss elected in 2018 and concerned about losing a primary challenge from the left this cycle, switched and became a Republican. Democratic Reps. Bill Pascrell and Donald Payne Jr. are also facing primary challenges from Zina Spezakis-- who’s also running under the “Not Me. Us.” slogan--  and Alp Basaran, and Eugene Mazo and John Flora, respectively.
None of the challengers were rated good enough to be endorsed by Blue America, and I suspect they will all lose, not because the incumbents don't stink to high heaven-- they do-- but because most of the challengers are inept and incompetent candidates. Some of the country's worst House Democrats-- Gottheimer, of course, as well as Frank Pallone, Albio Sires, Mikie Sherill-- are from New Jersey, but not one of them has a primary opponent capable of winning a campaign.

I hope I'm wrong about Oseguera and I haven't spoken with him personally, so maybe I am. Grim and Lacy wrote that he "lucked into an advantage on the ballot-- or, more accurately perhaps, he made his own luck-- that may be consequential in a race between two people with such little name recognition. In New Jersey, machine politicians for decades have implored supporters to 'vote column A all the way,' a phrase that became synonymous with loyalty to the party machine. Column A on New Jersey ballots is reserved for candidates running as a slate, from the president down to the freeholder, a county legislative position. Typically, it is only the machine that is able to put together that sort of slate, as progressives rarely have a Senate candidate fielded, and even more rarely a body in the presidential primary. But this time, Sanders supporters recruited veteran activist Larry Hamm to run for Senate against Cory Booker, enabling a slate to be formed with Hamm and down-ballot insurgents. (They had wanted Sanders to sit at the top of their slate; his campaign, however, never filed the paperwork needed to join it.) The machine, meanwhile, was torn between various presidential candidates-- including Booker-- and so declined to make any endorsement. That meant that the progressive slate in Hudson and Union counties, the population centers of the 8th District, was eligible for the A column. Because there was more than one slate, the A spot was decided in an April 9 drawing-- which the insurgents won. Voters accustomed to casting their ballots “A all the way” will wind up supporting Oseguera." That's actually funny.

The Junta: Christie, Norcross, Sweeney-- New Jersey's Axis of Evil

“There’s going to be a set of voters that show up and do their regular Democratic duty of ‘vote A all the way,’ and they might swing this election,” said Oseguera, who was raised in the district by a mother who taught and a father who held a variety of jobs, from handyman to cashier to driver. Oseguera said that when his phone bankers end the call by reminding voters to “vote column A,” they often reply with a version of “Of course, we always vote line A.”

Ron Bautista is one of the six freeholder candidates running under the Sanders-inspired slogan of “Not Me. Us.,” in a district that largely covers Hoboken. “[Oseguera’s] campaign has brought together grassroots progressives like it has never been done before,” said Bautista, who last year challenged a 16-year city council incumbent, picking up a third of the vote without a slate or developer money, which the New Jersey establishment tends to rely on. “We are at the heart of machine politics in New Jersey, and sometimes progressives have run individually against the machine. For the first time, we have a progressive slate of candidates from Senate to county government.”

Three of the slate’s nine freeholder candidates failed to qualify for the ballot, coming short on signatures, while a number of those who qualified did so by collecting electronic signatures amid the pandemic. Roger Quesada was one of them, drawing on his professional experience in e-commerce and marketing. “There’s no slate in recent memory that has ever been this organized and with a strong digital infrastructure,” he said.

...Oseguera's race against Sires presents intriguing parallels to Ocasio-Cortez’s, as well as divergences. Where Crowley was a local machine boss with national ambitions, on his way to becoming speaker of the House, Sires is merely a local machine boss. Like Ocasio-Cortez, Oseguera has raised precious little money, relying instead on a network of volunteers and local activist groups to power him to victory in what is likely to be an extremely low-turnout election against an incumbent with little name recognition in a community that has changed underneath him. (Crowley was far better known in Washington than in his home district, which cost him dearly in the primary.)



Oseguera, unlike Ocasio-Cortez, does not label himself a democratic socialist; given the number of refugees of the Cuban Revolution in the district, the term remains deeply toxic. But he supports the gamut of policies that tend to define more progressive Democrats: a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, a wealth tax, $15 minimum wage, and so on. He does not, however, have the support of Justice Democrats, the group that backed Ocasio-Cortez’s challenge and has been conservative in handing out endorsements since then. He said that when he appealed to the group for an endorsement, they told him that Sires’s voting record wasn’t egregious enough to merit the group’s scarce resources. (The group recently launched a Super PAC.) Unlike the incumbents whose challengers Justice Democrats has backed this cycle, like Dan Lipinski and Henry Cuellar, Sires is a reliable Democratic vote and has such a low profile that ousting him would barely make a ripple.

Like Ocasio-Cortez, Oseguera’s campaign, two months out from the primary, is broke, with $22,731 raised and less than $4,000 cash on hand, according to the latest filing. For Ocasio-Cortez, a viral campaign ad, combined with national coverage, helped elevate her profile and raise last-minute money, which she pumped into canvassing, phone and text banks, and digital ads. But Osegeura is campaigning amid a pandemic, with effective shelter-in-place orders, so there’s likely to be very little canvassing between now and the July 7 primary. The Oseguera-Sires contest will be fought out digitally and over the phone, a disadvantage for Sires, who has virtually no virtual presence and doesn’t even have a campaign website. Oseguera managed to buy Sires’s domain name-- AlbioSires.com-- and redirect it to his own fundraising page.


For a machine boss, Sires has little to show in the way of money, though he’s well ahead of Oseguera. This cycle, Sires has raised just $340,000 and had $237,000 cash on hand as of March 31. His biggest donors are the local trade unions and the Desert Caucus, an extremist, pro-Israel group that endorses settlements and the annexation of Palestinian territory.

...Oseguera's campaign is using its limited funds to target Democrats likely to vote by mail ahead of the primary, which was postponed from June. Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy has been pushing for an all-mail primary, but backtracked after pushback from machine leaders across the state. Because of their lack of cash, Oseguera said, his campaign narrowed its voter data purchase to 75,000 Democrats in the district who regularly vote in general elections but don’t show up for primaries. Vote-by-mail, he hopes, will make those people more likely to return a ballot if volunteers can get texts and calls in front of them enough. He expects 50,000 votes will be enough to win.

The postponement of the primary and the expansion of vote-by-mail add to the uncertainty around how the election will go, said Farmer of Rutgers University. While the changes could hamper the machine’s overall advantage, the insurgents’ fundraising barriers could also make it difficult to reach voters. “The burden of getting the information to the voters is greater because of the restrictions that we’re all operating under now,” he said.

Partial vote-by-mail “does put an additional burden on the parties if they want to maintain their encouragement of straight-ticket voting that they really have to be sort of out there and more aggressive in encouraging that then probably they have been in the past,” he said, noting that campaigns’ inability to do in-person canvassing is another complicating factor.

The shift toward vote-by-mail has made the machine nervous. DeGise told the New Jersey Globe that she opposes mail-in voting and was pushing for an all in-person vote because loyal machine voters are more likely to turn out to the polls, whereas making mail an option would bring more voters in. Mail-in voting, she said, is “just not in the culture here. … Our strongest voting blocks are not going to vote by mail,” adding that voting by mail is more popular among Democrats who don’t typically vote.

Eleana Little, a Hudson County freeholder candidate, cited the machine’s machinations as evidence that they’re nervous about insurgents harnessing that strength. “We’ve got people,” she said. “We’re building a grassroots movement and have over 100 volunteers. We’re phone-banking every day and hearing from people that they’re excited about what we’re doing. Hector comes from a working-class background and has mountains of student loan debt, like so many millennials. He didn’t have $50,000 to drop on his own campaign like some candidates do, and he doesn’t have wealthy family connections. So the war chest is small, but there are a lot of people involved. I think the fact that the machine is so nervous shows that we’ve built substantial momentum, and it’s not just all in our heads.”

As the pandemic worsens it's not just the virus itself that threatens human life. The corruption, cronyism and incompetence of those in power is adding fuel to the fire.

It's been said that the virus doesn't discriminate, but politicians and CEOs continue to prioritize their own power and profits over the lives of the most vulnerable.


Whether you consider Josh Kraushaar journalism's version of a silly clown or not, he really is the voice of the Inside-the-Beltway political establishment. He writes, at the National Journal their reality. His column yesterday, for example, began exactly the way any establishment ass-licker would begin a post if he was starving to lick more ass: "Joe Biden's decisive drubbing of Bernie Sanders in the presidential primary squelched the socialist stirrings that had been percolating within the Democratic Party. It’s probably no coincidence, then, that three of Congress’s most far-left members, all aligned with Sanders, are facing credible challenges of their own in upcoming House primaries. Three of the four freshmen members of the left-wing "Squad" that President Trump calls “AOC+3”-- Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota-- have drawn opponents who have made the case that they’re too extreme for the districts they represent. Tlaib is at risk at losing her seat to an experienced [and utterly corrupt and incompetent] African-American official in her Detroit-area district. And while Ocasio-Cortez and Omar are favored to prevail, they will face their first serious test over the popularity of their progressive messages in deep-blue districts." Oh gee, he forgot to mention that the Democratic establishment recruited a Republican pretending to be a Democrat to run against AOC. The hopes of the corrupt party establishment channelled through their boy Josh:
The unusual and unpredictable turnout patterns for upcoming summer primaries taking place during a pandemic will also add some uncertainty to these races. New York Democratic officials have been working to cancel the presidential primary for their June 23 elections, a decision overruled by a federal judge and currently under appeal. Without a presidential race driving turnout and with the coronavirus keeping many voters home, tiny turnout for state and local primaries raises the likelihood of unpredictable outcomes. Indeed, the low turnout in the 2018 New York primary was a major factor in Ocasio-Cortez’s upset of longtime Rep. Joseph Crowley.

Ocasio-Cortez’s primary against former CNBC anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera hasn’t drawn a lot of attention, but it’s worth watching closely. The congresswoman’s district, which spans Queens and the Bronx, has been one of the hardest-hit areas in the country from the pandemic. But Ocasio-Cortez was the only House Democrat to vote against the coronavirus-relief bill, a lonely and unpopular position on Capitol Hill. She told the New York Times that, after the vote, she felt more alienated in Congress than ever before and was facing a personal existential crisis.

Those personal feelings are undoubtedly authentic, but by making the crisis about herself, it offers a tempting opportunity for Caruso-Cabrera to portray her as someone driven more by ego than the needs of her constituents. Caruso-Cabrera is no novice: The granddaughter of Cuban and Italian immigrants, she served as the chief international correspondent for CNBC for nearly a decade. More notably, she raised over $1 million in the first three months of the year, an impressive amount for a seemingly long-shot challenger. Her strong fundraising gives her enough cash to run a professional campaign. Ocasio-Cortez, one of the best-funded members of Congress in the country, raised $2.7 million during the same period and has $3.5 million in the bank.

Ocasio-Cortez’s supporters appear to be taking notice of her upstart challenger. The Intercept, an antiestablishment publication that promotes left-wing candidates like Ocasio-Cortez, published a hit piece against Caruso-Cabrera this month for serving on the board of directors for a life-insurance company that “profits from death.” For a campaign that hasn’t drawn much attention, especially during the pandemic, the piece looked like a sign that they were taking Caruso Cabrera’s insurgent campaign seriously.

There has been no recent public polling of the race. When I reached out to Ocasio-Cortez pollster Celinda Lake to get her perspective on the race, she declined comment. An April 2019 Siena poll found her support in the district surprisingly lukewarm, with 52 percent of district voters viewing her favorably and 33 percent viewing her unfavorably. This, in a district that Hillary Clinton carried by a 57-point margin (77-20 percent).

With turnout expected to be very low-- and without a presidential campaign to drive Sanders supporters to the polls-- this is a race that’s worth watching. Even a weaker-than-expected showing by Ocasio-Cortez might tempt the congresswoman to run for president in 2024 instead of remaining as a lonely voice in a party that’s rediscovered the merits of political pragmatism.

While Ocasio-Cortez is the biggest name of the three renegades, Tlaib is the congresswoman facing the toughest challenge. She’s facing a rematch against Detroit City Council president Brenda Jones, whom Tlaib defeated by fewer than 1,000 votes in the 2018 primary. The congresswoman benefited from numerous African-American candidates splitting up the black vote on the primary ballot, allowing her to win with a 31 percent plurality. Tlaib won over the white voters in the Detroit district, but struggled to win support among African-Americans. Jones is hoping to consolidate the black vote behind her this time around.


Tlaib holds a fundraising advantage, with $1.4 million in the bank at the end of March. Jones, who announced her candidacy in March, is starting her fundraising from scratch in the middle of a pandemic.

Tlaib has faced criticism from her fellow Democrats over her anti-Israel activism and support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. But pro-Israel Democratic voters and donors are wary of Jones as well, given her past praise of anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Between Tlaib’s underwhelming electoral history and the racial dynamic in the district, it’s clear that she’s vulnerable. A March survey conducted by longtime Michigan pollster Ed Sarpolus found Tlaib only leading Jones 43 to 34 percent. Her 9-point lead was down 28 points since the survey’s last poll in June. Being well under 50 percent as a high-profile incumbent is a glaring warning sign. Another reason why Tlaib should be worried: Joe Biden comfortably defeated Sanders in her district despite her high-profile surrogacy for Sanders.

The other Sanders-supporting member of the squad, Ilhan Omar, looked like she didn’t have too much to worry about. While she’s drawn plenty of criticism for her use of bigoted tropes to attack Jewish supporters of Israel-- and faced the risk of censure from her own party-- she’s been insulated by support from both white progressives and a Somali-American base in her heavily Democratic Twin Cities district.

But she’s facing a spirited challenge from Antone Melton-Meaux, an attorney and mediator who has criticized the congresswoman for her divisive record and has courted support in the district’s Jewish community. “Omar has made statements that have been reckless and harmful to the Jewish community," Melton-Meaux told Jewish Insider last month. "There’s a deep sense of betrayal by her actions and displeasure with the way that she has handled herself in the process with regard to the residents in this district.”

Melton-Meaux raised $210,000 in the last fundraising quarter, a respectable amount that will allow him to get his message across. Omar ended March with $1.3 million in cash on hand, giving her a significant advantage.

But in a sign that Omar may be sensing a backlash, she quietly signed onto a letter urging the Trump administration to extend a United Nations arms embargo against Iran. While it was signed by over 380 members of Congress, the document backed by The American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] was a departure from her previous positioning on the Middle East. Indeed, she drew backlash from her anti-Israel supporters for supporting the policy.

It’s still hard to see Omar losing in a primary after emerging as a progressive star in her first term. But it’s very possible that her sudden repositioning is a result of her looking to shore up political vulnerabilities.

Goal ThermometerThese three competitive races are a reminder that even among liberal primary voters, many Democratic voters aren’t fans of the in-your-face brand of socialism that these three freshman members have promoted in their first terms in office. And with an establishment figure like Biden comfortably leading the presidential race, they’re at risk of being marginalized in a way they’ve never experienced-- even if they win their contested campaigns.
Please help defeat Kraushaar (and his ilk) by clicking on the Blue America 2020 incumbents thermometer above and contributing what you can. Kraushaar certainly makes a very convincing case to always beware of any candidate he endorses, whether implicitly or explicitly.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,