The Orange Menace Must Be Defeated-- Biden Needs To Rev Up The Democratic Base

I feel like Trump is slitting his own throat and, in fact, he's already a dead-man-walking in terms of the November election. That's my opinion and not everyone agrees with me. But polls show most voters have made up their minds and will not be swayed and a majority of them have made up their minds to oppose trump, whether they like Biden or not. In fact, stunning numbers of voters are just motivated to cast ballots against Trump, not for Biden. On his blog yesterday, David Sirota took it a step further and noted that "As Biden has ignored the Democratic base, polls now show he faces an enthusiasm gap. Progressive pressure is needed to force him to energize Democratic voters and defeat Trump. The survey data is clear: One of the biggest threats to defeating Donald Trump in the upcoming election is a Democratic enthusiasm gap. It exists, in part, because Democratic voters spent the last 12 years voting for change, and now they are exhausted after they kept getting a status quo that gratuitously kicks the face of humanity. The enthusiasm gap also exists because Joe Biden has seemed more focused on trying to court Republicans in ways that can demotivate Democratic voters. Progressives sounding alarms about these facts are periodically depicted as seditious Russian-backed assets nefariously trying to throw the election to Trump."

Most [progressives] criticize Biden not just because some of his policies are so wrong on the merits, but also because his wrongness is a clear and present danger to the effort to win the 2020 election.

A comparison of Biden’s positions and polling suggest that this danger is now very real, even though the Democratic ticket still could win.

Biden has continued to oppose Medicare for All, even as polls show the health care crisis has made that proposal even more popular.

Biden has used the wildfire season to declare that he won’t ban fracking-- a move portrayed in the media as a way to court Pennsylvania voters, even though a new poll shows a majority of voters there oppose fracking.

I remember when Matt Cartwright challenged Blue Dog incumbent, Rep. Tim Holden. Holden basically represented the fracking interests inside the House Democratic caucus and Cartwright made his own opposition to fracking the issue. Blue America put up anti-fracking billboards all over the district. Thewhole Democratic establishment-- especially Steny Hoyer-- came out strong for Holden. The Democratic establishment said an anti-fracking platform would never win in northeastern Pennsylvania. In a leans-Republican district, Cartwright beat Holden 33,255 (57.1%) to 24,953 (42.9%) and then went on to beat pro-fracking Republican Laureen Cummings 161,393 (60.3%) to 106,208 (39.7%). The GOP has been throwing candidates up against Cartwright-- whip of the Congressional Progressive Caucus-- even since and, aside from screaming "Socialist!!!!" and "Pelosi" (and now "AOC and Ilhan"), they campaign against him on fracking as well. Since Cummings, he's beaten all 3 pro-fracking Republicans they ran against him-- even in 2016, when Trump won the district against Hillary by 10 points. They're trying again now and if you want to help Matt keep his seat, you can contribute here. 

Cartwright is backing Biden and I'm sure will be a good influence on him when he's in the White House. Back to Sirota:

Biden engineered a Democratic convention promoting GOP politicians as a way to try to make this “the year of the Biden Republican,” as Rahm Emanuel put it. And yet, a recent CBS/YouGov poll shows Biden is earning the support of just 5 percent of Republican voters and trailing Trump among independent swing voters.

The Biden-Sanders task forces produced some solid progressive economic policy recommendations, but Biden hasn’t campaigned on those proposals. Instead, his campaign publicly downplayed the recommendations, while Biden has continued to periodically echo his infamous “nothing would fundamentally change” theme by telling donors he may not actually push those policies. Now, one poll shows him underperforming among some Latino voters and another poll shows just 9 percent of his own voters say they are supporting him because of his position on issues.

...To be sure, enthusiasm may not determine the election outcomes-- an excited voter’s ballot is no less powerful than a depressed voter’s ballot, and as long as both ballots are turned in, then enthusiasm levels don’t matter. But enthusiasm tends to relate to turnout, and it could particularly determine turnout at a moment when some Americans will be required to be so psyched about the election that they are willing to venture out during a pandemic to cast their vote.

In that situation, enthusiasm probably matters a lot-- which means an enthusiasm gap could be a big problem.

...Voters aren’t unreasonable “purists” because they are unhappy that Democrats don’t seem to be offering policies that will prevent communities from being incinerated in climate-intensified wildfires. They aren’t “holier than thou” by expressing dissatisfaction with a Democratic Party still propping up a for-profit health care system that threatens to quickly bankrupt people when they need medical care.

At a moment of such pain and suffering, attempting to guilt, insult and bully voters into supporting the Democratic cause is moronic and ineffective-- and worse, it is ignorant of millions of Americans’ lived reality over the last 12 years. The Democratic electorate has voted over and over and over again for change, and their party’s leaders have returned the favor with bank bailouts, record oil exports during a climate emergency, an abandonment of the labor movement, corporate-written trade policies that crush workers and health care reform that props up insurance profits.

Who could experience the real-world consequences of that and not feel a wee bit frustrated?

Like? Click.

Yes, wanting voters to throw Trump out of office is totally understandable-- he is far more dangerous than Biden, he must be defeated, and there are plenty of constructive ways to make the case that voters should back the Democratic ticket (which I’ve said before is what I’ll be doing). But vote-shaming isn’t one of them. Indeed, throwing shade at voters for feeling burnt out and unenthused is the modern-day “let them eat cake”-- and the impulse to engage in as self-destructive a tactic as vote-shaming evinces the dangerous ideology at work here.

You’ll notice that Democratic vote-shamers rarely complain the other way. Typically, they lament progressive pressure, but don’t lament big donors constantly demanding ideological fealty to an incrementalist corporate agenda that makes sure nothing fundamentally changes-- which inevitably leads to voter disillusionment.

They celebrate efforts to policy pander to affluent conservatives, but scoff at the notion of having to do any work to secure support from disaffected lower income Americans who might consider sitting the election out or voting third party because they are so completely disgusted with both parties.

In this world view, Democrats promising tax breaks to wealthy suburbanites is seen as laudable pragmatism and shrewd politics to attract affluent Republicans. By contrast, the idea of having to promise a Green New Deal to young people who see a lifetime of climate dystopia and think about voting third party-- that’s seen as uncouth behavior and detestable pandering to petulant serfs who supposedly don’t deserve even minimal respect or attention. The political class tells us to pay them no mind-- they are the electoral arena’s “no real person involved.”

As an election strategy, this attitude presumes that Chuck Schumer was right in 2016 when he insisted that “for every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

Of course, that theory has been electorally shellacked for a decade. And yet, these Democratic elites adhere to it-- and vote-shame anyone who questions it-- not because it has been successful and is the best strategy to win back Congress, expand health care or save the planet from climate change. They cling to the hypothesis because it at least provides a rationale-- however absurd-- to continue running campaigns whose number one directive is comforting the donor class.

More than even defeating Trump, satisfying the big contributors is the top priority because at least that is guaranteed to keep their checks going to Washington super PACs, consulting firms, think tanks and advocacy groups that are the permanent full-time employment machine for the entire Democratic political class, regardless of whether that political class ever actually wins elections or materially improves the lives of voters.

As long as donor maintenance is the prime directive and the money keeps flowing, that political class will be safely insulated in their second homes in the Hamptons, still getting the big TV invites and the fat corporate lobbying contracts even if Trump wins.

The rest of us, though, are screwed in a second Trump term. We don’t have vacation compounds, escape pods or endless cash reserves for the basic necessities of life-- and so we do not have the luxury and privilege of staying silent while Biden’s corporate-friendly politics and nothing-will-fundamentally-change message elicits an enthusiasm gap that could blow this election.

When, for instance, Bernie Sanders politely suggested that Biden needs to amplify a stronger economic message and “do more as a campaign than just go after Trump,” that wasn’t apostasy-- that was much-needed encouragement for Biden to do the most basic things to actually win the race.

When progressives criticized Biden for loading up his transition team with corporate cronies, that wasn’t some evil plot to tank the Democratic ticket-- it was an effort to root out the soft corruption that has defined Democratic politics for three decades and that has contributed to voters being unenthused about the party.

When progressives wondered aloud why Biden was giving a platform to unpopular Republican politicians like John Kasich at the Democratic convention, it wasn’t some pointless temper tantrum-- it was an attempt to steer Biden away from touting the GOP politicians who turn off Democratic voters and toward generating the massive Democratic turnout that will be necessary to defeat the current president.

When this newsletter spotlighted Biden’s campaign using GOP talking points and suggesting he will not follow through on his campaign promises, that wasn’t a display of purity trolling-- it was a warning that such messages were not only dishonest but potentially vote-depressing. And when Team Biden then backed off, that’s not something to complain about-- that’s a victory not just for better policy, but also for the campaign to defeat Trump.

That’s a different interpretation than you are probably used to seeing. After all, in our red-versus-blue, with-us-or-against-us tribalized politics, loyalty is venerated as the ultimate value. But here’s the thing: Loyalty is not falling in line and shutting up while leaders coddle donors and create a dangerous voter enthusiasm gap.

That’s political suicide-- and all of us who do not want to see another election-night disaster have an obligation to speak up and try to avert it before it happens.

Matt Cartwright Is A Strong Progressive In A District Trump Won

In 2012, Matt Cartwright waged a strong primary campaign against reactionary Blue Dog Tim Holden (one of the "Democrats" who joined with the GOP to vote against ObamaCare). Hoyer and Pelosi warned that a progressive like Cartwright could not win that red a seat in northeast Pennsylvania. Matt was one of Blue America's top candidates that year and we were in the trenches with him, while Hoyer ran around the district with a pack of lobbyists begging "people" to vote for Holden, a pro-frack-maniac. Matt won-- by a lot: 57.1% to 42.9% and then went on to beat the Republican Hoyer and Pelosi said he couldn't do by even more: 161,393 (60.3%) to 106,208 (39.7%). Matt then joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus and worked his way up to the caucus' whip. He was immediately appointed vice chair of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition Caucus. Even before the election, he endorsed marriage equality, a position that the DCCC recommended that swing district Democrats stay away from. since then, he's had a 100% voting record from the Human Rights Campaign.

This week, Matt told me that when he first ran for Congress, "I promised to be a Roosevelt Democrat-- someone who stands up for the ordinary working people of the United States, for their safety, their economic security, their access to healthcare, their clean air and water, and their civil rights. I promised to be someone who isn’t afraid to take on what FDR called the 'economic royalists,' the powerful, the moneyed, and the connected. Drawing on the words of the late Paul Wellstone, I ran as a proud member of the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.' It was my belief that, as Democrats, we do not ever need to forfeited these principles, even in so-called difficult districts.I have never abandoned these values, or hidden them, and I believe my voting record reflects that. My congressional story is a demonstration that when we have the courage of our convictions, and stand for them in a forthright manner, we can win districts like mine with a consistently progressive message. If it means working a little harder, we’re not afraid of that."

He was reelected in 2014 and in 2016, while Trump won his district by 10 points, Matt won by 7.5 points. In 2018 the GOP threw a self-funding Wall Street crook up against him (who spent $1,687,182 of his own money on the race) and, even with the district gerrymandered against him, he beat the Republican by over 9 points.

This year, the GOP has a fringe nut, Jim Bognet, who won the crowded Republican primary on one message: claiming he is the Trump candidate. Lately, as Trump's approval continues to sink in northeast Pennsylvania, Bognet is trying to back away from his Trump-adhesion.

This year, Matt's district is rated a "toss up." A few days ago Ted Lieu called me and asked if Blue America could help raise campaign funds for Matt, who he told me needs some help to overcome the Republican onslaught. Matt is their #1 target among House incumbents.

Ted told me that he and Matt are co-chairs of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, and that he had gotten to know him well. "He is an amazing Member of Congress who has advanced strong progressive values in a district that Trump won by 10 points," said Lieu. "Matt has shown remarkable courage, determination and grit. He is in a tough race again and we must bring him back to Congress. I hope you can help Matt. And as a bonus, every Democratic voter that Matt turns out in his district is also very likely to vote for Biden over Trump in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania."

Another strong and activist Democrat who Matt serves with in the House, Jamie Raskin (D-MD), wants us to let DWT readers that, in his words, "Matt Cartwright is the lucid, passionate and unmistakable voice in Congress of every victim of asbestos poisoning, every community fighting toxic contamination of their water, and every citizen fighting for his or her rights against big money, big business and big government.  If you give a damn about the survival of democracy in America, do something right now to keep Matt Cartwright in Congress."

Please consider making a contribution to Matt Cartwright's campaign. Along with Ted Lieu and Jamie Raskin, he's one of only an even dozen incumbents we've endorsed this year. The other men and women we've endorsed are in blue districts. Matt's PVI is rated R+1.

U.S. Has No Competent Leadership In The Current Crisis-- We Are Flying Blind

When Obama was elected in 2008, Bush left him a major financial crisis that came to be known as the Great Recession. Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel chief of staff who was widely quoted as having said "You shouldn’t let a crisis go to waste," meaning it could be used to pass otherwise difficult legislation and enact policies that might get more scrutiny and opposition under other circumstances.

Needless to say, the Trump Regime is trying to do that right now and we've discussed their economic wish list for the catastrophe. particularly lowering taxes and jeopardizing Social Security and Medicare. Politico's Betsy Swan, though, looked in a different direction for something they'd like to do: suspending constitutional rights under cover of the crisis. Enter, stage right: William Barr, the Trumpst Attorney General. "The Justice Department," she reported, "has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies-- part of a push for new powers that comes as the novel coronavirus spreads throughout the United States." Barr is targeting the statute of limitations, asylum, the way court hearings are conducted and is "seeking the authority to extend deadlines on merger reviews and prosecutions."

The move has tapped into a broader fear among civil liberties advocates and Donald Trump’s critics-- that the president will use a moment of crisis to push for controversial policy changes. Already, he has cited the pandemic as a reason for heightening border restrictions and restricting asylum claims. He has also pushed for further tax cuts as the economy withers, arguing it would soften the financial blow to Americans. And even without policy changes, Trump has vast emergency powers that he could deploy right now to try to slow the coronavirus outbreak.

...In one of the documents, the department proposed that Congress grant the attorney general power to ask the chief judge of any district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”

The proposal would also grant those top judges broad authority to pause court proceedings during emergencies. It would apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings,” according to draft legislative language the department shared with Congress. In making the case for the change, the DOJ wrote that individual judges can currently pause proceedings during emergencies but that their proposal would make sure all judges in any particular district could handle emergencies “in a consistent manner.”

The request raised eyebrows because of its potential implications for habeas corpus-- the constitutional right to appear before a judge after arrest and seek release.

“Not only would it be a violation of that, but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest,’” said Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.”

Reimer said the possibility of chief judges suspending all court rules during an emergency without a clear end in sight was deeply disturbing.

“That is something that should not happen in a democracy,” he said.

Matt Cartwright (D-PA) is self-quarantined and has had some time to think about this threat. "It is abhorrent to use 'emergency' as an excuse to curtail American civil rights," he told me today. "We in Pennsylvania are rightly proud of our own Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts.  A lifelong Republican, not only did he vote to uphold Social Security as constitutional. But, just as consequentially, he also was one of the dissenting votes in Korematsu v. United States, in which the Court upheld our shameful imprisonment of thousands of innocent, loyal Americans of Japanese ancestry during Workd War II. Roberts dissented because he understood the truth:  that when we surrender the civil rights of any American, we forfeit a part of why America is even a nation in the first place."

Jim Harper is an attorney who is running for the open blue congressional seat in northwestern Indiana. "The Justice Department's ploy is shocking," he told us this morning, "but not surprising. Donald Trump does not care about due process, and he does not care about fixing our broken criminal justice system. At a time when governments should be releasing non-violent and low risk offenders to reduce the risk to inmates and employees alike, Trump and Barr are using this emergency to hold inmates for longer than the law allows. Trump is once again trampling on the Constitution. We should all be concerned. Today, he is using this emergency to take rights away from inmates and asylum seekers. Who will be next?"





Lev Menand and Ganesh Sitaraman went through seven lessons we should have learned from the Great Recession. McConnell failed to move any of his reactionary pandemic legislation yesterday-- in part due to all the Republican senators quarantined. Even before that, Menand and Sitaraman were urging that we look back at policy choices made in 2008 to help us navigate the current emergency. "Policymakers," they wrote, "pursued a variety of crisis-fighting strategies, from investing in banks and automobile companies, to cutting taxes and green-lighting infrastructure investments, to re-regulating financial institutions and setting up new agencies to protect Americans from some of the harmful practices that helped precipitate and worsen the crash. Looking back at what worked and what didn’t can help us reprise successful strategies while avoiding pitfalls."

1 Fiscal Stimulus Should be Big, Salient, and Recurring. The 2009 stimulus was big, but not big enough. Famously, Christina Romer, President Obama’s chief economic advisor, proposed a stimulus of greater than $1 trillion, but was rebuffed by political advisors who thought that amount would appear too large. The stimulus that passed was not only too small, but it was largely composed of withholding tax reductions. This tax cut went unnoticed by most people, compared to getting a check from the federal government. (Incredibly, that was by design.) For a stimulus to work well, people should know and feel that they are getting money in their pockets. Ideas like cancelling student loan debt, expanding Social Security payments, and direct transfers are therefore far better than payroll tax cuts. And as economic crises generally do not resolve themselves immediately, a stimulus should not be a one-time-only action. Indeed, after the last stimulus, the federal government adopted sequestration, a disastrous austerity policy that ran directly counter to continuing to spark growth and recovery. A stimulus should be sustained with recurring elements to restore confidence and ensure that recovery does not depend on the legislature reauthorizing expansionary policy every six months.

2 Target Main Street. During the 2008 crisis, policymakers targeted the bulk of the bailout money at Wall Street financial institutions, rather than homeowners. The result was twofold. Wall Street recovered relatively swiftly, while homeowners did not; and the economy was rebuilt on a shaky foundation as homeowners struggled for years to get above water on their mortgages. Some at the time argued for rescuing homeowners, rather than big financial institutions, but their arguments went unheeded. This time, instead of homeowners, it’s small businesses and workers who are in trouble. Restaurants, bars, mom-and-pop retail, and other local enterprises are suffering from physical distancing. Workers are losing their jobs. Policymakers’ focus needs to be on proposals that will keep these businesses and individuals afloat. Stabilizing household balance sheets will address one of the roots of the crisis and lay the foundation for economic recovery.

3 Reforms Should Make Structural Improvements. Both bailouts and a stimulus can be designed as one-time policies or can be designed to have structural implications to get the economy on a safer, stronger, more secure footing in case of a future crisis. Reducing withholdings-- as the 2009 stimulus did-- or the payroll tax cut that the White House proposed recently do not serve that purpose; in fact, they could weaken important safety net programs. Instead, policymakers should push for proposals like paid leave, and condition bailouts on higher wages and governance reforms. These kinds of changes strengthen the economy after the crisis subsides-- and make it more resilient for when the next crisis hits.

4 Bailouts Without Stringent Conditions are a Bad Idea. When the government bailed out financial institutions in 2008, it did so with few conditions. This created two sets of problems. First, rescued firms were free to use taxpayer funds to pay bonuses, rather than for shoring up the economy at the household level. And second, it re-established that these institutions were too big to fail, and gave them license after the fact to return to irresponsible, risky behavior. Thus, many of the biggest banks have grown since 2008 and pushed for deregulation, increasing the likelihood of future bank bailouts. Executives and investors did well during the boom years, knowing that the government would likely rescue their firms if things went bad. While some say that we should simply let irresponsible private companies fail, certain businesses are effectively public utilities for which continuity of service is of critical importance. Banks are essential to economic functioning, and in a crisis the government is typically the only source of new capital to keep them operational. Airlines, which face serious distress today, also provide basic infrastructure. Policymakers need to keep these businesses running but they do not need to bail them out unconditionally.

5 Debt Restructuring Should Focus on Forgiveness. In a shrinking economy, facing growing deflationary pressures, some debts cannot be repaid. But default and foreclosure are hugely disruptive and damaging, and in the current environment, actively dangerous. During the Great Recession, policymakers adopted technical, complicated policies like the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) to get at the ongoing mortgage crisis. But HAMP was difficult to navigate, slow to act, helped too few people, and disproportionately benefited big companies. HAMP was also inadequately sized. Mortgage debt overhang continued, holding back consumer spending and impeding the recovery. A better, simpler, and more effective response would alleviate suffering by simply forgiving debt and eliminating debt overhang.

6 Technocratic Regulation Is Fragile and Often Ineffective. After the financial crash, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, a law that reformed the financial system largely by requiring technocratic governance by administrative agencies, rather than through structural improvements to the design of financial institutions. For example, instead of breaking up the banks through a simple, clear Glass-Steagall regime, the Volcker Rule prohibited proprietary trading, but with some carve-outs. Companies heavily lobbied regulators on the specifics, ultimately stretching the rule to hundreds of pages of obscure language. A few years later, banks succeeded in rolling back several aspects of the Volcker Rule. Looking forward, policy reforms shouldn’t focus on either deregulation or technocratic regulation—they should focus on structural reforms that create the conditions for enduring economic stability.

7 If it Functions as Money, it Should be Regulated as Money. The Federal Reserve recently announced it would back commercial paper markets, repo markets, and money market mutual funds, serving as a lender of last resort for issuers of these deposit-substitutes. This gives these firms the benefits of a public subsidy without imposing any of the prophylactic safeguards designed for bank deposits. Ordinarily, banks get the benefit of federal insurance through the FDIC, in return for being regulated and paying fees to the government. This prevents a “run” on the banks, and it was a critical part of the New Deal. In 2008, a run in the money markets helped deepen the financial panic and amplify the recession, and yet this market was never fully reformed. We shouldn’t make the same mistake twice. If the Fed is going to backstop these money-substitutes, they should be brought into the bank regulatory regime.

Time To Let The Handful Of Smart Members Of Congress Set The Agenda-- Meet Katie Porter

Only one of these people has the brains to lead

There's no foolproof test, but it's a lot easier to name the most corrupt members of Congress-- think Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Greg Meeks (New Dem-NY), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Vern Buchanan (R-FL)-- than the stupidest... or smartest. Most of the really, really dumb ones don't last that long in Congress-- exception being Alaska dimwit Don Young-- but Rand Paul is on everyone's "most stupid" list, as are 3 who are retiring this year, Sean Duffy (R-WI), Tom Graves (R-GA) and Rob Woodall (R-GA), as well as Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Joe Wilson (R-SC), David Schweiker (R-AZ), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ). Before Trump plucked him out of Congress to make him his chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) was almost universally considered the dumbest person in the House. Presumably, now he'll be the dumbest person in Northern Ireland.

But when it comes to smarts, it's much easier. First of all, the vast majority of members of Congress are certifably morons. "Despite the many advanced degrees from prestigious universities, and despite the fact that many in Congress are millionaires, the average IQ of U.S. Representatives is 101. The average IQ of U.S. Senators, is surprisingly, even lower at 98. And, it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Democrats in Congress are less stupid than Republicans.

During the last election cycle, we urged Blue America members to help elect Katie Porter, in part because she was one of the smartest people running for Congress. She won and has proven us-- time and time-- correct in our assessment. While most of the freshmen have shown themselves to be just what they looked like when they were running-- dumb as bricks-- Porter has not disappointed. She's widely considered one of the best questioners in committee and she is always coming up with solid, innovative ideas. Before being elected, the rural Iowa-born brainiac, taught law at UC Irvine, having graduated from both Yale (undergrad, where her thesis was The Effects of Corporate Farming on Rural Community) and Harvard Law, from which she graduated magna cum laude in 2001.

Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) are also widely considered two of Congress' only truly brilliant members. This morning Ro told me that "Katie is brilliant-- a towering intellect. What more is there that needs to be said!" At the same time, Jamie said, "As Elizabeth Warren’s prize pupil, Katie is the most devastating questioner we have in the House to expose corporate ripoffs and government lethargy, and everyone is learning from her tactical brilliance and clarity of expression. We’re thrilled to have her on the Oversight Committee now, and even though she’s our most junior Member sitting way down at the bottom of the list, the last shall clearly be first in our investigations. Katie has also become an outspoken and eloquent force for single parents."

In a Congress filled with lawyers, Matt Cartwright (D-PA) is acknowledged to be one of the sharpest attorneys elected to government. This morning he told us that "When a single mom gets home from work, late at night, because it’s her second job, her feet hurting and her back sore from just pushing herself all day, when she looks in on her teenage kid, just to make sure he made it home safe through the neighborhood they have to live in, when she sorts through the mail in the kitchen and sees the letter from the collection agency and the reminder about how the rent is going up next month, when she stops in the bathroom to take her heart meds and sees she’s down to her last week before she has to get the one refilled, and it’s the expensive one, and when she sets the alarm and lies down for another short night, there’s this one thing that she can’t get out of her head. Today she saw a video clip of a young Congresswoman from California questioning this smug, self-satisfied rich Wall Street banker about how regular people in this country can’t possibly make ends meet on what they’re paid, let alone get ahead. She saw that young Congresswoman just take that banker apart on national television. And, as she finally closes her eyes for the night, she smiles. Katie Porter makes me proud to be a Democrat."

On Friday, Porter was on CNN with Chris Cuomo explaining her plan to implement remote congressional voting during the pandemic. "I am calling on Congress tonight, on leaders of both parties, to adopt a remote voting procedure to ensure that if we're not able to travel, if this public health crisis worsens...we're still able to take votes... We're asking the American public to adopt public health measures and it's really important... that Congress adopt public health measures itself. Congress itself has been flatfooted during this crisis in terms of how we deal with things."

"You've seen the House floor," she continued. "It's a scrum of people. 435 members and 150 staff in close quarters using the same voting machines. We're asking American businesses, schools, non-profits, local governments to be flexible and to obey public health guidelines.

"Congress should be no exception. We should be willing here to be flexible and adopt a remote voting procedure that can be invoked if necessary. I don't think there is any excuse for us to disobey the public health guidelines and to refuse to use technology to adapt to this public health emergency when at the same time that businesses and communities do exactly that."

Pelosi has wanted to do this for weeks but denies it publicly because she doesn't want to somehow appear "weak" while McConnell keeps the Senate in session. Most people working on Capitol Hill who I've spoken with agree with Porter and say it would be OK to look bad to a shrinking number of pandemic-deniers and stay alive while older senators start dying off. Last week Tomas Pueyo answered an important question:How Can Politicians Contribute to Social Distancing?. The question politicians are asking themselves today is not whether they should do something, but rather what’s the appropriate action to take. There are several stages to control an epidemic, starting with anticipation and ending with eradication. But it’s too late for most options today. With this level of cases, the two only options politicians have in front of them are containment and mitigation.

Containment

Containment is making sure all the cases are identified, controlled, and isolated. It’s what Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan or Taiwan are doing so well: They very quickly limit people coming in, identify the sick, immediately isolate them, use heavy protective gear to protect their health workers, track all their contacts, quarantine them… This works extremely well when you’re prepared and you do it early on, and don’t need to grind your economy to a halt to make it happen.

I’ve already touted Taiwan’s approach. But China’s is good too. The lengths at which it went to contain the virus are mind-boggling. For example, they had up to 1,800 teams of 5 people each tracking every infected person, everybody they got interacted with, then everybody those people interacted with, and isolating the bunch. That’s how they were able to contain the virus across a billion-people country.

This is not what Western countries have done. And now it’s too late. The recent US announcement that most travel from Europe was banned is a containment measure for a country that has, as of today, 3 times the cases that Hubei had when it shut down, growing exponentially. How can we know if it’s enough? It turns out, we can know by looking at the Wuhan travel ban.

...If the transmission rate goes down by 25% (through Social Distancing), it flattens the curve and delays the peak by a whole 14 weeks. Lower the transition rate by 50%, and you can’t see the epidemic even starting within a quarter.

The US administration’s ban on European travel is good: It has probably bought us a few hours, maybe a day or two. But not more. It is not enough. It’s containment when what’s needed is mitigation.

Once there are hundreds or thousands of cases growing in the population, preventing more from coming, tracking the existing ones and isolating their contacts isn’t enough anymore. The next level is mitigation.

Mitigation

Mitigation requires heavy social distancing. People need to stop hanging out to drop the transmission rate (R), from the R=~2–3 that the virus follows without measures, to below 1, so that it eventually dies out.

These measures require closing companies, shops, mass transit, schools, enforcing lockdowns… The worse your situation, the worse the social distancing. The earlier you impose heavy measures, the less time you need to keep them, the easier it is to identify brewing cases, and the fewer people get infected.

This is what Wuhan had to do. This is what Italy was forced to accept. Because when the virus is rampant, the only measure is to lock down all the infected areas to stop spreading it at once.

With thousands of official cases-- and tens of thousands of true ones-- this is what countries like Iran, France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland or the US need to do.

But they’re not doing it.

Some business are working from home, which is fantastic.

Some mass events are being stopped.

Some affected areas are in quarantining themselves.

All these measures will slow down the virus. They will lower the transmission rate from 2.5 to 2.2, maybe 2. But they aren’t enough to get us below 1 for a sustained period of time to stop the epidemic. And if we can’t do that, we need to get it as close to 1 for as long as possible, to flatten the curve.

So the question becomes: What are the tradeoffs we could be making to lower the R? This is the menu that Italy has put in front of all of us:

• Nobody can enter or exit lockdown areas, unless there are proven family or work reasons.
• Movement inside the areas is to be avoided, unless they are justified for urgent personal or work reasons and can’t be postponed.
• People with symptoms (respiratory infection and fever) are “highly recommended” to remain home.
• Standard time off for healthcare workers is suspended
• Closure of all educational establishments (schools, universities…), gyms, museums, ski stations, cultural and social centers, swimming pools, and theaters.
• Bars and restaurants have limited opening times from 6am to 6pm, with at least one meter (~3 feet) distance between people.
• All pubs and clubs must close.
• All commercial activity must keep a distance of one meter between customers. Those that can’t make it happen must close. Temples can remain open as long as they can guarantee this distance.
• Family and friends hospital visits are limited.
• Work meetings must be postponed. Work from home must be encouraged.
• All sports events and competitions, public or private, are canceled. Important events can be held under closed doors.

Then two days later, they added: No, in fact, you need to close all businesses that aren’t crucial. So now we’re closing all commercial activities, offices, cafes and shops. Only transportation, pharmacies, groceries will remain open.”

One approach is to gradually increase measures. Unfortunately, that gives precious time for the virus to spread. If you want to be safe, do it Wuhan style. People might complain now, but they’ll thank you later.

Which members of Congress have the brains and the balls to do the right thing-- even when it is also the difficult and even unpopular thing? Remember, 83% of the members of Congress are actual morons, and one of them-- Mitch McConnell-- can keep anything and everything from moving forward at all, let alone in a timely manner.

Good Riddance To Rubbish Democrats! We're Better Off Without Them-- And We Do NOT Need Them

The screenshot above is from ProgressivePunch. It shows where the 9 worst Democrats meet a bunch of Republicans who sometimes stand up to Trump. The worst of the Democrats-- Blue Dogs Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Joe Cunningham (SC), Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Kendra Horn (OK) vote far more frequently with the GOP than with the Democrats on crucial roll calls. These Democrats muck up the party brand and always drag the congressional party right-ward. Brindisi particularly is like a whiny 8 year old always bitching how progressive votes will lose him his seat and that if he votes against them, Democrats in his district will turn on him but that if he votes for them, conservatives in his district will vote against him. Let's face it; we would all be better off without Anthony Brindisi. And without Van Drew, Cunningham and Horn to boot. They are a detriment, not an asset, in Congress.

Yesterday, NBC News focused on Cunningham, who represents a red South Carolina district which includes much of Charleston. He won it last year when the GOP kicked out Mark Sanford in a primary and replaced him with a deranged Trumpist Cunningham managed to beat 145,455 (50.7%) to 141,473 (49.3%). Although Cunningham came close in Dorchester and Berkeley counties, his victory was all about winning Charleston County (which is where the Democrats live). This cycle there are at least half a dozen Republicans competing to take him on. Last cycle he outspent Republican Katherine Arrington $2,388,237 to $1,563,050 and so far this cycle his has outraged his perspective Republican opponents: Only 5 have raised any money so far:

• Joe Cunningham (D)- $1,770,525
• Nancy Mace (R)- $487,199
• Katherine Landing (R)- $352,833 (79% self-funded)
• Mike Covert (R)- $146,733
• Chris Cox (R)- $89,735
• Phil Norris (R)- $28 (100% self-funded)

What NBC News wanted to know is how worried Cunningham should be? After all, Obama lost the district twice, and althoughTrump didn't do as well as either McCain or Romney, he still beat Hillary 53.5% to 40.4%. And, it was his opposition to Sanford that lost the former governor and incumbent congressman his reelection. Reporter Lauren Egan wrote that Cunningham is counting on the "all politics is local adage" still being true in the Age of Trump. When Cunningham reluctantly voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry at the last minute-- after opposing it for months-- he said, "Today’s vote is not a vote on impeachment. It is not even a vote to approve of the impeachment inquiry. And as I’ve stated multiple times over and over again, I have yet to make up my mind about impeachment."

[N]ational Republicans are wagering that the House inquiry, which is likely to force Cunningham to cast a public “yes” or “no” vote on whether to impeach Trump, could cost him his re-election.

“The Democrats’ obsession with impeaching and removing President Trump from office will cost Joe Cunningham his seat in November,” said Camille Gallo, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a statement to NBC News.

Political strategists on both sides of the aisle say Trump-district Democrats like Cunningham have a delicate balance to strike. On one hand, he risks turning off a liberal base that is itching to see Trump go down. On the other hand, if he comes across as overly enthusiastic about impeaching the president, he could alienate some independent and Republican voters who were critical to his winning coalition in 2018.

Cunningham needs to get Democrats out to the polls in record numbers and persuade Independents to vote for him. He doesn't need Republican votes. NBC should know better. Besides, most voters in the district told NBC that impeachment isn't a big issue for them-- at least not yet. They're more interested in how Cunningham voted on the minimum wage-- against it-- than on the impeachment inquiry.

A right-wing website, the American Spectator-- on the other hand, sees impeachment as defeating Cunningham and many of the other congressmembers from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. David Catron predicts that a vote to impeach will cost them their seats. He points out that the Republicans need only flip 19 seats to win back the majority. He left out one word: net-- they need to win a net of 19 seats. A more likely outcome is that they win 5 or 6 Trump districts and lose 40 others. Bad net for them.

He focused on 7 seats-- a stretch:

Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-SC): In 2018, Cunningham beat a weak opponent by fewer than 4,000 votes in South Carolina’s 1st District. During his campaign, and until just recently, he spoke of impeachment in the following terms: “I’ve warned members of my own party that a partisan rush to impeach the president would be bad for the country.” Last Tuesday, however, he announced that he would vote for the resolution. Like most of these faux moderates, he will tell his constituents that Thursday’s vote merely affirmed an ongoing investigation. This will not mollify the voters to whom he so brazenly lied. In a district that the president won by 13 points in 2016, Congressman Cunningham is a dead Democrat walking.

Rep. Max Rose (D-NY): Rose defeated Republican Dan Donovan in 2018 in New York City’s last Republican stronghold, the 11th District. Like Cunningham, he told his constituents he was against impeachment. In fact, he wrote an op-ed that included the following denunciation of any such course of action: “Impeachment will not improve the lives of the hardworking Staten Islanders and South Brooklynites that I fight for every day.” But Congressman Rose had an impeachment epiphany after he arrived in Washington. The president won NY-11 by 10 points in 2016. With Trump at the top of the ticket again in 2020, plus a strong Republican opponent backed by the NRCC, Representative Rose is very likely a goner.

Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK): Horn narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Steve Russell in Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District, a major upset in a state dominated by the GOP. Her margin was painfully thin, and her victory was no doubt facilitated by her alleged opposition to impeachment. As recently as a month ago, she was still trying to have it both ways when talking to her constituents: “While I didn’t support an impeachment inquiry, I certainly know that these are serious allegations that have to be investigated.” Yet when Thursday arrived and she had the opportunity to keep her promise or cave to political pressure, she opted to betray the voters who elected her. Rep. Horn won her seat by a mere 1.4 percent in a district Trump carried by 14 points in 2016. She’ll be history after 2020.

Xochitl Torres Small (D-NM): Torres Small is yet another candidate who ran in 2018 as a different kind of Democrat and eked out a narrow victory over Republican Yvette Herrell in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District. Small did suggest a creative way to dodge the resolution: “The president’s conversation with the Ukrainian president must be investigated.… Designating this as an impeachment inquiry, though, has led some in the public to believe that a conclusion has been reached while … facts are still being gathered.” Yet she kept her toe on the party line during Thursday’s vote. Torres Small won her House seat by 1.8 percent in a district Trump won by 10 points. She should update her résumé.

Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-NY): Brindisi defeated Republican Claudia Tenney to win New York’s 22nd District and has always claimed to be averse to impeachment. After the fabled phone call between presidents Trump and Zelensky, however, his position began to evolve: “The thought that any government official, especially our commander-in-chief, would hold up foreign aid to an ally and suggest they investigate a political opponent, is a grave and troubling accusation. It is clear that this administration needs to provide answers.” Inevitably, he voted for Thursday’s resolution. In 2018 Brindisi won by less than two points in a district President Trump won by more than 15 points. He’ll be crushed in 2020.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA): In 2018, Cartwright fought off a challenge by Republican John Chrin in Pennsylvania’s 8th District. Cartwright has, unlike the other alleged moderates, not been coy about his support for impeachment. As early as September, he was pretty much committed: “We need to get to the bottom of these serious allegations through comprehensive impeachment proceedings.” The overall ideological bent of Cartwright’s district is difficult to gauge because it was redrawn in 2018 by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania pursuant to a gerrymandering lawsuit. It is, however, located in a part of the state that the president won by double digits in 2016. Cartwright probably won’t survive 2020.

Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME): Golden represents Maine’s 2nd District, despite his failure to win the most votes on Election Day in 2018. Pursuant to Maine’s ranked-choice voting, he was declared the “winner” several days after the polls closed. He has temporized on the impeachment resolution for some time, but finally caved to pressure from his caucus the day before the vote: “While I disagreed with the initial decision to open the impeachment inquiry, it is clear that the investigation has confirmed information contained in the whistleblower complaint.” Trump won Maine’s 2nd District by more than 10 points in 2018, so it’s a pretty good bet that Golden will be departing the House after the 2020 election.

In addition to all these “moderate” Democrats ensconced in districts where President Trump won by double digits, a number occupy districts that he won by more than six points: Rep. Ben McAdams (D-UT) won Utah’s 4th District by 694 votes in 2018. Trump carried UT-4 by seven points in 2016. Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-NY) eked out a victory in his first attempt at New York’s 19th District in 2018. Trump carried NY-19 by seven points in 2016. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) narrowly won her first term in Michigan’s 8th District in 2018. Trump won MI-8 by seven points in 2016. Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ) won New Jersey’s 3rd District by 1.3 points in 2018. President Trump carried NJ-3 by more than six points in 2016.

And the beat goes on. In addition to the 12 listed above, there are 18 more Democrats clinging to districts that Trump won in 2016. That brings the total to 30. As noted above, the Republicans need to flip slightly more than half of these to retake the House. Moreover, the GOP is awash in campaign cash. As Open Secrets reports, “RNC continues to dwarf DNC in fundraising.” This means that the GOP project of retaking the House will enjoy three major advantages-- a target-rich environment, the ability to fund any campaign that shows real promise, and the moral high ground associated with defeating an attempt to oust a president whose faults just do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

All of this brings us back to Thursday’s hyper-partisan vote and the resolution that purports to lay out the framework for the next phase of the “impeachment inquiry” launched by fiat during a news conference last month. This resolution, departing from 150 years of historical precedent, endows the House Intelligence Committee with extraordinary power over the inquiry, codifies Adam Schiff’s closed-door hearings, severely limits the powers of the Republican minority, and violates the president’s right to due process. The Democrats whose districts were won by Trump in 2016 have signed their own political death warrants by voting for this tawdry resolution. Execution day will be November 3, 2020.

Matt Cartwright looks safe-- as do Slotkin, Delgado, Rose and Golden. Catron makes himself look like a fool and a party tool by writing that "Cartwright probably won’t survive 2020." It's wishful GOP thinking, not anything related to actual reality. Cartwright is well-liked and respected by his constituents. Last year the GOP put up a self-funding bankster, John Chrin, and Cartwright beat him 135,603 (54.6%) to 112,563 (45.4%) inside the new district boundaries. Cartwright raised $2,396,418 while Chrin wrote himself a check for $1,687,182-- 74% of the total $2,276,322 he spent trying to unseat Cartwright. The NRCC put another $625,778 used to smear Cartwright and it didn't do a bit of good. So far this cycle, no Republican has raised a dime against Cartwright and no serious candidate has stepped forward. Cartwright has $1,047,665 in his campaign war-chest. The idiot Catron should run. Meanwhile, though, please consider contributing to Cartwright's campaign by clicking on the worthy incumbents thermometer on the right. He's the only one of the Trump district Democrats we're helping raise money for and he's the only one of them with a progressive voting record.

Matt Cartwright On Prospects Of GOP Shutdown: "Yes, They’re Going To Do It Again, Because They’re Still Here And It’s What They Do"

A day or two ago I saw a scare headline in Politico: "CHANCES OF A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN ARE SKYROCKETING… There’s been next to no progress on a deal to lift mandatory government spending caps that take effect in January, so aides in both parties have said they believe that a shutdown is becoming more and more likely. Remember: Funding expires at the end of September." That seemed ominous. I reached out to a few members who follow this kind of thing closely. One told me that the Republicans are planting this kind of crap because they are trying to create a narrative that allows lifting of the debt ceiling without agreeing to budget caps which will be a no go for us. She said it was just "a bit of yammering."

Another trustworthy congresswoman-- also off the record-- told me she feels there's a "50% chance of a shutdown. Trump will be looking to distract from impeachment, Dem presidentials, and I believe, an economy that will soon falter." That isn't very encouraging, especially coming from one of the 3 or 4 most fiscally literate members of Congress. Ted Lieu, always the practical voice in the House, reminded me today that "The irony on the looming debt ceiling fight is that we now have less time to deal with it because of the Republicans' ridiculous tax cuts. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, we could hit the borrowing cap in early September due to lower than expected tax revenues."

Another congressman who was willing to speak on the record though was our old friend Matt Cartwright, a straight-shooter from northeast Pennsylvania, who Roll Call referred to recently as "a notable exception among Democrats in Trump districts... someone who doesn't stick to the middle."

He repeated the essence of the question: "Is there going to be another government shutdown?" And then went into a story of what happened in his life on Tuesday:

Yesterday I was on a plane ride back to Washington after the Independence Day break. In the seat next to me was a young life sciences engineer, who had never been especially political, but who this day was taking the opportunity to ask some questions that he had been wondering about.  Why is there so much dysfunction in Congress? Why does it seem that the partisanship is particularly toxic now, more than ever?

I asked him what he thought the answers were.

The young man hesitated as he thought about it. Then he turned to me and said, “my impression is that the Democrats in the House are passing a lot of common-sense legislation that will be good for a tremendous amount of people in this country, but it’s McConnell in the Senate just blocking everything, to kiss up to the right-wingers, and the White House.”

I told him all of that was exactly right. That we Democrats have passed bills shoring up protections for people with pre-existing conditions, voting rights, gun safety, election security, and bringing down the skyrocketing costs of prescription meds. And that not only has Sen. McConnell’s Republican Senate blocked all of that and more, but he himself, Mitch McConnell, has called himself “the Grim Reaper,” because he enjoys that role, the role of obstructionist on anything that House Democrats produce, no matter how helpful and popular it is for ordinary Americans.

And, what’s more, there is every indication that there will be another government shutdown later this year, because this same faction of half-crazed nihilists, people who have joyously shut down the government several times during my six-and-a-half year tenure, people who love a government shutdown with an ecstasy approaching rapture, men and women who at such times if you look carefully you can see they have small bits of foam just visible at the corners of their mouths, because these people ran for government jobs with the intention not of figuring out a way to make government work better for everybody, but with a plan to make it all crash and burn. Because they hate it.

I’ve been calling them “the shutdown crowd,” and the thing is, they’re still here, and some are working in the White House now. They were the ones ginning up the President to take proud ownership of the monthlong shutdown at the start of this year. And they are the ones already feverishly collecting the kindling for their next demented shutdown bonfire, and once more enlisting frenzied participants to engage in their manic dance around it.

So, yes, they’re going to do it again, because they’re still here and it’s what they do.

By the way, Matt's district went for Trump 53.3% to 43.7%. The GOP immediately sprung into action and ran a far right multi-millionaire against him, John Chrin. Chrin put $1,687,182 of his own money into a smear campaign against Matt-- and spent a total of $2,276,322 against him. The NRCC threw in another $625,778 but in the end, Matt beat him 135,603 (54.6%) to 112,563 (45.4%), winning the 3 counties that supply the most votes in the district, Luzerne, Lackawanna and Monroe, while losing in the more rural Pike and Wayne counties. This cycle the GOP appears to be running the Luzerne County District Attorney, Stephanie Salavantis against Matt. If you'd like to make sure he is reelected, please click on the 2020 worthy incumbents thermometer on the right and contribute what you can.

How Will Climate Change Impact You And Your Neighbors?

I wanted this post to be part of the last one, asking if Climate Change denial is impeachable, but a friend of mine kept yelling at me that it was too long. Blah, blah, blah; he wouldn't shut up, so here it is... a separate post. If you get your news from MSNBC you might not be aware that author Marianne Williamson is running for president. She's far better known than many of the candidates Maddow fawns over but she speaks truth-- and too plainly for the corporate masters over there so... they're pretending she isn't running and helping to guarantee none of the pollsters include her in their research. This morning, Williamson told me that Trump's "continued advocacy for the short term profits of fossil fuel companies over and above advocacy for the health and well-being of our people and our planet is a radical departure from our democratic norms. As president, among my first acts will be to appoint a world-class environmentalist as head of our Environmental Protection Agency, and to push for a Green New Deal. Former oil and chemical company executives will have no place in the newly formed EPA, which will become a fully supported hub of genuine environmental protection, scientific excellence and sustainable development. We will rejoin the Paris Climate Accords immediately. Climate change will be dealt with as the urgent threat that it actually is, and I will use the full force of the presidential bully pulpit to declare the debate about this over. On a scale of 1 to 100, this issue ranks 100 in importance. Nothing else will matter if we do not deal with this one thing." [If you want to read in greater depth about what Williamson plans to do about Climate Change if she's elected, her campaign website goes into some real depth.] "Corruption, both legalized and unvarnished," she reminds us, "makes it extremely difficult to take on the power of the energy-producing giants. Until we deal with the issue of money’s powerful influence on our political system, none of this will truly change, which is why campaign finance reform is a central tenet to my governing philosophy."

I want to dial back to the end of November for a moment, when the staff of Grist worked together to explain the impact of Climate Change, region by region. Something tells me Trump's panel of scientists will not be looking at the problem in any directions that lead towards this kind of analysis. In fact, Team Grist gleaned this from the same Climate report from the Trump Regime that freaked the fake president out and inspired him to come up with a bogus anti-science panel to deny Climate Change.

The Northeast, they began, "is looking at 'the largest temperature increase in the contiguous United States'-- 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the time 2035 rolls around. We’re going to be slammed with the highest rates of sea-level rise in the whole damn country, and we’re going to have the highest rate of ocean warming. Urban centers are particularly at risk (remember Superstorm Sandy?). And if you’re a fan of snuggling up beside the fire in your Connecticut mansion (or whatever), be warned that winters are projected to warm in our region three times faster than summers. That means delayed ski seasons and less time to tap maple trees. Things are gonna be rough on us humans, but dragonflies and damselflies-- two insects literally no one ever thinks about, but that flourish in healthy ecosystems-- are pretty much doomed. The report says their habitat could decline by as much as 99 percent by 2080. Sea-level rise, flooding, and extreme weather poses a mental health threat to Northeasterners. Impacted coastal communities can expect things like 'anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.'" Let's look at the other regions, one by one:

Southeast

If, like me, you love your filthy, dirty South, you’ll be pleased to hear that summer thunderstorms, skeeters, ticks, and hot, muggy weather aren’t going anywhere! (Actually, don’t be pleased. This is serious.)

Southerners are accustomed to warm days followed by warm nights, but as the heat continues to turn up, those nights just might be our downfall. Urban and rural areas alike can expect to sweat through up to 100 additional warm nights per year by the end of this century. Hot, sticky nights make it harder for us to recover from the heat of the day. This is especially bad in parts of many Southeastern cities, where residents suffer from the “heat island effect.”

“I think it’s really important to look at the heat-related impacts on labor productivity,” says chapter author Kirstin Dow, a social environmental geographer at the University of South Carolina. Under one scenario, the Southeast could see losses of 570 million labor hours, amounting to about $47 billion per year-- one-third of the nation’s total loss. What’s more, Dow says, “Those changes are going to take place in counties where there’s already chronic poverty.”

Caribbean

In the near future, the Caribbean will experience longer dry seasons and shorter, but wetter rainy seasons. To make matters worse: During those arid periods, freshwater supplies will be lacking for islanders. And since islands (by definition) aren’t attached to any other land masses, “you can’t just pipe in water,” says Adam Terando, USGS Research Ecologist and chapter author.

The report confirmed something island-dwellers know all too well: Climate change is not coming to the Caribbean-- it’s already there. And it’ll only get worse. Disastrous storms the likes of Hurricane Maria-- which took the lives of nearly 3,000 Puerto Ricans-- are expected to become more common in a warming world.

Another striking result: Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are projected to lose 3.6 percent and 4.6 percent of total coastal land area, respectively, posing a threat to critical infrastructure near its shores. The tourism industry will have to grapple with the disappearance of its beaches. Even notable cultural sites aren’t safe: Encroaching seas threaten El Morro-- a hulking fortress that sits majestically on the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Midwest

What’s in store for the Midwest? Oh hello there, crop diseases and pests! Hold onto your corn husks, because maize yields will be down 5 to 25 percent across the region by midcentury, mostly due to hot temps. And soybean hauls will decline more than 25 percent in the southern Midwest.

Beyond wilting crops, extreme heat puts lives at risk. The Midwest may see the biggest increase in temperature-related deaths compared to other regions, putting everyone from farmworkers to city-dwellers at risk. In one particularly bad climate change scenario, late-21st-century Chicago could end up seeing 60 days per year above 100 degrees F-- similar to present-day Las Vegas or Phoenix.

The Great Lakes represent 20 percent of freshwater on the world’s surface, but lately, they’re looking... not so fresh. Climate change and pollution from farms are leading to toxic algae blooms and literally starving the water of oxygen.

Northern Great Plains

The Northern Great Plains is far from any ocean. Water melts off mountain snowpack, slowly trickles down glaciers, and pools up in basins. The largely arid region is dominated by thirsty industries like agriculture, energy extraction, and tourism. There’s a byzantine system of century-old water rights and competing interests.

Or as my dad, a Montana cattle rancher, puts it: “Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting.”

Residents might want to steel themselves with a little bourbon as climate change will escalate those water woes, according to the report. Winters will end earlier and snow could decline as much as 25 to 40 percent in the mountainous regions.

It’s not just some far-off problem for cross-country skiers and thirsty critters. The authors point to the behavior of the mountain pine beetle as one example of a climate-influenced tweak that’s had devastating impact. Warmer winters and less precipitation have enabled the bugs to kill off huge swaths of forest in the region.

Lest you think what happens in the Dakotas stays in the Dakotas: While only 1.5 percent of the U.S. population lives in this region, it contributes nearly 13 percent of the country’s agricultural market value.

It’s culturally critical, too: The area is home to 27 federally recognized tribes that are already experiencing climate threats such as a lack of access to safe water and declining fisheries.

Southern Great Plains

The Southern Great Plains flips between heat waves, tornadoes, drought, ice storms, hurricanes, and hail. The weather is “dramatic and consequential” according to the report. It’s “a terrible place to be a hot tar roofer,” according to me, a former Kansas roofer. In a warmed world, none of this improves. Well, maybe the ice storms.

The region will continue to have longer and hotter summers, meaning more drought. Portions of the already shrinking Ogallala Aquifer, which is critical to a huge western swath of the region, could be completely depleted within 25 years, according to the report.

Texas’ Gulf Coast will face sea-level rise, stronger hurricanes, and an expanded range of tropical, mosquito-borne diseases like dengue and Zika. It’ll also experience more intense floods. Many of the region’s dams and levees are in need of repair and aren’t equipped for the inundations.

One of the chapter’s lead authors, Bill Bartush, a conservation coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, tells Grist that how landowners handle the extremes of water management will be key to climate adaptation. Given the region’s high rates of private land ownership, it’s essential to get them on board.

In weirder news, the region’s Southern Flounder population is declining because the fish’s sex is determined by water temperature. Warmer winters mean more males. It’s like a terrible reboot of Three Men and a Baby, but with more flounder and no baby.

Northwest

The Pacific Northwest has more rain in its winter forecast. That might not sound unusual for a region known for its wet weather, but more winter rain-- as opposed to snow-- could impact the region’s water supply and entire way of life.

Most of the Northwest relies on melting mountain snow for water during the summer. Climate change will replace more of that snow with rain, which flows downstream right away rather than being stored on mountainsides until the temperatures warm. Less snowmelt during hot summers could damage salmon habitat, dry out farms, harm the region’s outdoor industry, and increase wildfire risk.

“It’s like our tap is on all the time,” said Heidi Roop, a research scientist at the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, which helped author the chapter.

The report forecasts a lot of change in the Northwest, including flooding and landslides. But rainy winters? That’s one thing that’s not going away anytime soon.

Southwest

“I am large. I contain multitudes,” Walt Whitman said of himself. But he could have very well said it of the Southwest, where stretches of desert give way to soaring, snow-capped mountains. Yet this might not be the case for long. Climate change threatens all of this beautiful ecological diversity, as well as the 60 million people who call this area home, including 182 tribal nations.

The hottest and driest corner of the country is already suffering from heat waves, droughts, and increased wildfires. As a result, the Southwest, to put it bluntly, is running out of water. With water at already record low levels and a population that continues to grow, the region is working on a recipe for water scarcity.

“Lake Mead, which provides drinking water to Las Vegas and water for agriculture in the region, has fallen to its lowest level since the filling of the reservoir in 1936 and lost 60 percent of its volume,” coordinating chapter author Patrick Gonzalez, a climate scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, tells Grist.

In the coming years, temperatures in this region will soar. Droughts, including megadroughts lasting 10 years, will become commonplace. Agriculture will take a steep hit, causing food insecurity. Expect those lovely desert sunsets to take on an unsettling pink, as the snow-capped mountains grow bald.

Alaska

In Alaska, water is life, life is shellfish, shellfish is power. But, alas, climate change is about to do a number on the state’s marine life, food webs, and species distributions. According to the climate assessment, ocean acidification is expected to disrupt “corals, crustaceans, crabs, mollusks,” as well as “Tanner and red king crab and pink salmon.” Lots of indigenous peoples rely on that variety of marine life.

The largest state in the country is already ground zero for climate change. Thawing permafrost means structures are literally sinking into the ground all over the state.

What does a temperature increase really mean? Well, under the worst-case scenario, the coldest nights of the year are projected to warm 12 DEGREES F by midcentury.

I know I said water, either frozen or liquid, is the name of the game in Alaska, but the report says the state should expect more wildfires in the future, too. Under a high-temperature-increase scenario, as much as 120 million acres could burn between 2006 and 2100. That’s an area larger than California.

Oh yeah, and the report says there’s going to be an increase in “venomous insects.” Cheers.

Hawaii and the Pacific Islands

This region houses 1.9 million people, 20 indigenous languages, countless endemic (one-of-a-kind) flora and fauna species, and the freaking Mariana Trench (the world’s deepest point).

Pacific island communities can expect to grapple with the usual climate change suspects: rising sea levels, weird rainfall patterns, drought, flooding, and extreme temperatures. But all those things have unique implications for supplies of island drinking water. In short, like those who live in the Caribbean, these communities’ ability to survive depends on protecting their fresh water.

Extremes in the weather patterns El Niño and La Niña could double in the 21st century, compared to the previous one. El Ninos bring drought, which means Pacific communities have to desalinate water to make up for dwindling rainfall. But rising sea levels contaminate groundwater supplies and aquifers, which basically means Pacific Islanders have it coming from all sides.

Wait, there’s more. Too much freshwater is bad, too. Under a higher-warming scenario, rainfall in Hawaii could increase by 30 percent in wet areas by the end of the century. Think that’s good for dry areas? Think again! Projections suggest rainfall decreases of up to 60 percent in those. So more rain where rain isn’t needed and less rain where it’s dry. Great.

Matt Cartwright (D-PA) is a member of the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science and he's not looking kindly on Trump's science and climate denialism. "Yes," he told us this morning, "it’s true that they wanted to punish Copernicus and Galileo for believing Earth revolves around the sun. And that they really thought Columbus was going to sail off the edge of the flat earth. So is anyone really surprised that even after senior career administration and military officials have acknowledged that climate change is real, and dangerous, and that it is caused by human activity, the Trump White House is still going to set up a Climate Change Denial Task Force?"

"Let’s do the smart thing, and ignore their nonscience," he urged. ThIs month, Senator Ed Markey and I introduced the Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Act. Climate change is quickly becoming a public health crisis. Extreme weather, air pollution, and contaminated ground and drinking water increase the risk of pulmonary and cardiovascular issues, food-borne diseases, and heat-related illnesses. And our most vulnerable communities will bear the brunt of these impacts. That’s why we need to mobilize the nation to tackle these issues head-on. The Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Act would help state and local health departments prepare for the oncoming crisis and improve data tracking and research at the intersection of climate and health." He's asking DWT readers to help promote the billhe and Markey put together.