Progressives Will Largely Hold Their Noses And Vote For Biden (Who Isn't As Bad As Trump)

At this point I don't know anyone-- aside from myself-- who's still refusing to vote for Biden. No one I know-- not one person-- likes Biden or thinks he'll make a good president. Few expect him to even be a mediocre president. Most everyone I know expects him to be one of the worst... but not as bad as Trump, who is the worst... and beyond. But everything in Biden's decades in elected office says he'll be the worst Democrat in the presidency since, perhaps, James Buchanan, who, tragically, took office in 1857. The only hope for just a plain ole mediocre Biden presidency would be if he sits down in a rocking chair on the day after he's inaugurated, sucks his thumb for four years and lets Obama run the show.

On Tuesday night, though with no success, Trump tried splitting the progressive base away from the virulently anti-progressive Biden. Progressives know what a sack of shit Biden is and know that Trump is infinitely worse. Most people I know, say they will voted for Biden anyway and fully expect to start fighting his and his Wall Street "Nothing Will Change" agenda with all they have as soon as he takes office. Yeah, yeah.

With Trump's prodding, Biden went out of his way Tuesday night not just to distance himself from Medicare-for-All, but to make sure Americans know his plans for a faux public option are mostly faux and will in no way discomfit his friends (and donors) in the health insurance industry. He also bad-mouthed the Green New Deal and gave progressives every reason in the world to sit on their hands next month-- and then he called Trump a "clown" and told him to "shut up" and... some-- in not all-- was forgiven.

Tuesday night, Biden boasted about beating Bernie. Wednesday morning I got an e-mail from Bernie asking me to send a $500 contribution before the end of the day so he can continue trying to help elect the man I won't even vote for. "This is the most important election in the modern history of our country," he wrote. "It is absolutely critical we do all we can to defeat Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in modern American history." Everyone agrees and, like I said, everyone I know plans to hold their noses and vote for Biden.

NBC News' Sahil Kapur reported on Wednesday that a spokesman for the Justice Democrats, Waleed Shahid, responded to Trump's naked attempts to split the Democrats by saying that "Trump wants to play this ridiculous 'Gotcha, you and Bernie disagree!' game as if the entire primary didn’t happen. I think Biden could have tried to articulate his actual policy positions and what he wants to get done. But it was hard to articulate anything in that debate."

Shahid said the progressive movement’s role is to “elect a president closer to your views” and “broaden the scope of what's considered politically possible” with a mix of protest and pressure.

Biden's eagerness to distance himself from the left is reflective of his strategy to win the election by attracting moderate-minded seniors and white college graduates, rather than bet the race on turning out younger or irregular voters in Barack Obama's winning coalitions. Millennials and Generation Z voters are less enthused about Biden, and their voting patterns are difficult to predict.

For now, Trump is a unifying force masking genuine tensions between an older, moderate faction that runs the party and a rising base of young progressives seeking to reshape Democratic priorities. The debate is more reflective of a coffee table conversation on policy than a bloody knife fight threatening to wound the party.

I am not upset with Biden,” said Brian Fallon, a veteran Democratic operative who now runs Demand Justice, a group fighting for a more progressive judiciary and Supreme Court. He said he interpreted Biden's nonanswer on whether he'd support adding Supreme Court seats as a sign that it was “on the table” if he's elected president.

Fallon said Biden wanted to isolate variables and make his opposition to Barrett be about the proximity to the election, but said Biden “oversold it” by calling her a “very fine person.”

Ben Wessel, the executive director of the youth-focused progressive advocacy group NextGen America, dismissed the “noise” around Biden's Green New Deal remarks, and instead praised Biden’s plan for 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035.

Progressive activists say they view the contest as one between a reluctant ally and a mortal enemy. While some distrust Biden’s moderate instincts, they see him as willing to listen and adopt some of their ideas. Some take the optimistic view that he’d embrace more liberal ideas if elected.

“I don’t think most of our people give a shit what it’s called as long as it gives us a fighting chance at a safe and livable climate,” Wessel said. “The young people we’re talking to know that we’re going to have to push Biden to be even stronger on the issues once he’s in office, but that they’ve got to get him in the White House first.”

On Twitter, Ocasio-Cortez dismissed former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway’s attempts to highlight Biden’s opposition to the Green New Deal, contrasting him favorably with Trump, who she said “doesn’t even believe climate change is real.”

A Biden adviser said that if Trump’s strategy was to drive a wedge between Biden and progressives, it only backfired, as Biden held firm to his more moderate lane of the party and used the high-profile moment to undercut Trump's strategy of portraying Biden as a Trojan horse of the radical left.

Campaigning Wednesday in Alliance, Ohio, Biden addressed questions about his differences with the left, reiterating his opposition to Medicare for All and saying his plan is "the Biden Green Deal."

Biden said Trump keeps trying to run against "somebody other than me."

"I've said to the left, to the right, to the center exactly where I am on each of these issues," Biden told reporters. "So I'm not worried about losing the left, right or center of the party. This is a big party."

If Biden is elected, the governing tension could become a theme of his presidency.

Shahid said the modern left will pressure Biden the same way contemporary movements pressured Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson to be bolder.

"Lincoln was not an abolitionist, FDR was not a socialist or trade unionist, and LBJ was not a civil rights activist," he said. "In fact, they took great steps to distance themselves from those movements."

Many of the candidates endorsed by Blue America were Bernie or Elizabeth Warren supporters during the primaries. None were Biden supporters. All of them oppose Trump and I believe all of them plan to vote for Biden while sticking to their own progressive agendas. The first one I reached was Rockland/Westchester congressional candidate Mondaire Jones, a very independent-minded progressive. "The left in recent years has never shied away from a fight with members of the Democratic Party," he told me, "and I see no reason why we won’t flex our newfound muscle in a Biden-Harris administration. Biden and Harris would be working with the most progressive Congress we’ve seen, and I’m ready to make sure they’re sticking to their promises, and I'll be part of the effort to push them to be more in line with progressive values."

Similarly, West Virginia progressive, Cathy Kunkel, told me that her campaign "has been consistent from the beginning in fighting for an economy that works for all West Virginians-- for Medicare for All, well-funded public education and revitalizing our economy as the coal industry continues to decline. Our campaign will continue to advocate for those issues, and highlight the fact that Congressman Alex Mooney has done nothing in the last six years to address these urgent needs, regardless of the dynamics in the presidential race."

Nate McMurray, the populist candidate running in New York's "reddest" district (which he came within a handful of votes of winning in 2018) has a very clear vision when it comes to the elections next month. "Listen," he told he this morning, "I'm way more progressive than Joe Biden. I support him as the Democatic nominee but there are issues we really differ on. It's about the average Americans who need access to good quality, affordable healthcare, safety and secured rights for minorities and LGBTQ Americans. It's about being able to say and mean that Black Lives Matter and not having a President who just tells white supremacy groups to 'stand by' and refuses to renounce white supremacy outright. The American people and our democracy cannot take another four years of Trump. Will I fight for more progressive policies in Washington than Biden stands for? You bet I will. But we need him in office right now to restore our faith in humanity, and repair all the damage done to the country. A Trump win will tear the country apart."

ACB-- Another Terrible Idea Of Trump's And His Circle

 

I dissent by Nancy Ohanian

Dan Balz wrote scorching column for the Washington Post yesterday even before Trump announced Amy Coney Barrett, Facing possible defeat, Trump threatens the integrity of the election. "Each week has brough evidence," he began, "of the damage [The Donald] has done during his nearly four years in office. According to his own words, he is not finished. This past week brought a renewed warning of a harm he could yet inflict on the integrity of elections. [Donald] did more than simply refuse to pledge that he would facilitate a peaceful transfer of power if he loses to former vice president Joe Biden, though that in itself was a step no previous president has taken. In doing so, he escalated his ongoing attack on mail-in ballots, seeding the ground to contest the election as rigged or fraudulent if he is not the winner and to propel the country into chaos."

Balz speculated that all this carp from The Donald may "merely reflected the mind-set of a president who knows he is running behind in his bid for a second term, one more rhetorical flailing to somehow throw the opposition off balance and to distract from the real reasons for Biden’s lead in the polls. But this close to the election, anything Trump does to question the validity of the count should be regarded as serious and treated as such. Republicans who normally stand by idle when the president says or does something outrageous pushed back against his words-- though, notably, nearly all were careful neither to rebuke nor condemn the president personally. They simply pointed to a long history of peaceful transfers from one presidency to the next and stood up for the Constitution, which is the minimum expected of elected officials who have sworn an oath to defend that document."

As you know, almost all of these Republicans-- who were fanatics that "the voters must weigh in" when Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court-- almost a year before before the election-- are now saying that Donald's nominee must get a vote. Democrats see it differently. Reaction against his nomination yesterday was swift and overwhelming. Mondaire Jones is Blue America's candidate of the week and a court expert, so I was talking with him about about the nomination. His take, like many progressives, is that Barrett "thinks the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. She thinks abortion is 'always immoral.' She is hostile to LGBTQ+ civil rights, & would vote to undo marriage equality. Her nomination would be a direct attack on millions of Americans. We won't stand for it. A generation ago, the GOP replaced Thurgood Marshall, the founder of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, with someone who has cast decisive votes to undermine racial justice. Now they want to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who promises to undo her legacy of reproductive justice. Not on our watch." Jones will try to find support among his new colleagues to expand the Supreme Court by 4 members next year. [You can contribute to his campaign here.]

Current members were concerned about the same things Jones is concerned about. Pramila Jayapal, right after the announcement:

Any individual nominated to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court must believe in equal justice under law and opportunity for all. That means being fully committed to protecting civil rights and voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights, reproductive rights and disability rights, LGBTQ+ rights and Indigenous rights. It also means standing on the side of people over profits and communities over corporations when it comes to health care, protections for those with pre-existing conditions, immigration, the environment, consumer protections, ending gun violence and getting money out of politics.

Not only does Amy Coney Barrett fail to meet that standard, but she has spent years consistently and dangerously arguing against it from the federal bench. It is no wonder that conservative, right-wing groups had her on their recommendation list as they continue their coordinated attacks on health care, abortion rights, voting rights and the right of workers to organize. I strongly oppose this lifetime appointment to the highest court in our land, and I urge President Trump to withdraw his nomination as quickly as he made it.

With less than 40 days until the election, and as voters across America are already casting their ballots, we need to let their voices be heard. They know that everything is on the line. We must allow them to choose the next president and then allow that president to choose the next nominee for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. This is the same standard that Republicans implemented at the end of President Obama’s term when Merrick Garland was nominated with more than seven months remaining before the election. This is how we must proceed with the future of the court, this country and our democracy hanging in the balance.

AOC weighed in quickly as well: "If confirmed before the election, Barrett will have the opportunity to cast the deciding vote to strike down the ACA on November 10th when the Court hears California v. Texas. Millions of Americans would be thrown off their health insurance in the middle of the pandemic, and health insurers could refuse to cover individuals who have or have had COVID-19... And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Barrett holds radical positions when it comes to the right to choose. She is on record saying that abortion is 'always immoral.' On the 7th Circuit, she has repeatedly handed down decisions that would have limited abortion. With her on the Court, the conservative goal of repealing Roe v. Wade is within reach."

Bernie urged his supporters across the country to tell their senators "to do everything possible to slow down the nomination process... He called her nomination "a disaster for our country and our movement. If confirmed, she poses a threat to health care, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, voting rights, workers' rights, environmental protections, and so much more. Now Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans are going to try to rush through Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings and have the Senate vote on her nomination before the end of this year." He continued:

It is not a radical idea to suggest that the winner of this year's presidential election should be the one to select Justice Ginsburg's replacement. In fact, that is what the clear majority of the American people want.

But now that Trump has announced his nominee, Mitch McConnell is planning to rush a vote during this election year-- a complete contradiction from his position just a few years ago.

You may recall that in 2016 Mitch McConnell refused to have the Senate vote on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Scalia. McConnell's view at that time was that the nomination should be the job of the next president.

Here is what McConnell told Fox News in 2016:

"The Senate has a role to play here. The president nominates, we decide to confirm. We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential year is that the American people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision."

And it's not just Mitch McConnell-- many other Republican senators are on the record saying the same thing.

Well, today I say to my colleagues in the Senate: We must let the next president name Justice Ginsburg's replacement. Respect the will of the American people and delay Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Barbara Lee (D-CA) noted that "Senate Republicans have no shame in pushing a right-wing judge just weeks before the election despite the fact that a majority of Americans believe Mitch McConnell should wait to replace the judge until after the election. This lifetime appointment will reshape the court to a 6-3 conservative majority and have far-reaching impacts on our nation for generations to come. Amy Coney Barrett has a record of being hostile to reproductive rights, immigrants’ rights, gun control policies, and the Affordable Care Act. With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear a case on the Affordable Care Act coming up a week after the election, the stakes have never been higher. Right now our fundamental rights are on the line, and we need to do everything we can to honor Justice Ginsburg’s last wish and prevent Mitch McConnell from stealing this seat."

Back to Balz's pre-announcement column. He wrote that Señor Trumpanzee's "Republican allies in Congress... are they the people whose views he cares about most. Instead, his attempt to discredit mail-in ballots as a way to challenge a possible Biden victory is aimed at rallying his own army of supporters, prepping them to respond, if necessary, with protests or perhaps worse if he challenges vote tabulations-- and therefore the results-- in the days after the election. If any people believed that the president was just letting off steam when he declined to pledge a peaceful transfer of power, they can look to something White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said after FBI Director Christopher A. Wray had testified before a Senate committee that he knows of no evidence of 'any kind of national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise.' Wray’s comments were the latest in a string of statements from all kinds of election and security experts debunking Trump’s claims about mail-in ballots being rife with fraud. Meadows, however, chose to challenge the FBI director during an interview Friday on CBS’s This Morning. 'With all due respect to Director Wray,' he said, 'he has a hard time finding emails in his own FBI, let alone figuring out whether there’s any kind of voter fraud.' That was not a chief of staff trying to retract a president’s words or clean up after a mistake. What he said in attacking Wray was meant to reinforce the message the president continues to deliver."

Attorney General William P. Barr has added his voice to the campaign against mail-in ballots, saying they mean an end to the sanctity of the secret ballot-- and ignoring the steps states take to protect the secrecy of votes cast that way. This past week, Barr told the president about discarded mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, which the president claimed was evidence of fraud.

Voting-law experts have sharply criticized a Justice Department investigation into the matter.

People do want to know who wins the presidency as soon as possible, and generally that’s been on the night of the election or by early next day. But that was in years when nearly everyone voted in person on Election Day. In recent years, more Americans have chosen to vote ahead of the election at designated early-voting sites.

This year, because of the coronavirus pandemic, millions of Americans are reluctant to vote in person, whether on the day of the election or during specified early-voting windows. They prefer to mark their ballots without having to be in places with other people. As a result, there has been a surge in requests for mail-in ballots. Trump appears to fear that the more people who vote, and the easier it is for people who fear the virus to do so safely, the less chance he has to win the election.

The processing of those mail-in ballots will take longer than ballots cast on Election Day. Some states require that mail-in ballots arrive by Election Day, others that they simply be postmarked by Election Day. Ballots may legally arrive for days after Election Day, and processing and counting can and will be slow in some places, as the primary elections showed. There will also be challenges to some of these ballots, and some will be discarded because they were filled out improperly.

No matter the exact system, the processing and counting of these ballots is more laborious and therefore slower. California is a case in point, a state where the counting can go on for days and possibly weeks. In 2016, Hillary Clinton saw her vote totals rise steadily after the week of the election, eventually amassing a popular vote margin of nearly 5 million votes in the state. In 2018, California Democrats captured House seats with the votes that were tabulated days after the election, including two in which Republicans were leading the day after the election.

The scenario that could play out on the night of the election is simple. In the hours after the polls close, Trump could appear to be winning in some of the states that will decide the election, even though tens upon tens of thousands of ballots will not have been counted.

At that point, as he did with a tweet during the 2018 U.S. Senate race in Arizona, Trump could attempt to call a rhetorical halt and claim that whatever happens next is a sign of fraud or evidence of a rigged count. The tabulating will continue, but how will his loyalists react if he cries foul?

To suggest this is all just mischief-making by the president is to understate the potential maliciousness of what he is attempting to do. He seeks to disqualify voting in states where all voters are being sent mail-in ballots, which he claimed, without evidence, in a recent tweet means they are open to “ELECTION INTERFERENCE by foreign countries” that will lead to “massive chaos and confusion.”

Facing possible defeat in November, the president also recently tweeted that this year’s election “may NEVER BE ACCURATELY DETERMINED” because of mail-in ballots. In another tweet he claimed, “RIGGED ELECTION in waiting.” At a rally in Wisconsin last month, he said, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.” On Friday night in Virginia, he said, “We’re not going to lose this except if they cheat.”

If Trump loses the election and then moves to discredit the results in the face of no evidence of widespread fraud, the country will be confronted with one more crisis of his presidency-- one that will have been unfolding in plain view.

Donald’s announcement of his Supreme Court nominee drew about 150 guests to the White House and, appropriately enough, according to Washington Post reporter Seung Min Kim "most of [them] declined to wear masks or social distance because of the coronavirus pandemic. Notable in the Rose Garden crowd were former campaign aide Corey Lewandowski, Faith & Freedom Coalition Founder Ralph Reed and Fox News host Laura Ingraham. Folding chairs were set close together for the event. Among the lawmakers in attendance were Republican senators who will be voting on the nominee-- Josh Hawley (MO), Thom Tillis (NC), Deb Fischer (NE), Ben Sasse (NE), Kelly Loeffler (GA), Mike Lee (UT) and Marsha Blackburn (TN)." If you could pick one of them to not die, who would it be?

I caught up with New Jersey congresswoman and progressive icon Bonnie Watson Coleman at church this morning. After the services, she told me that she had two problems with what was happening here, first "The hypocrisy of nominating a replacement of this ilk, or any person to the Supreme Court at this time, and second This particular nominee, Amy Barrett Coney. First, we are at the end of the election season when an important decision about the direction of this country is being considered. Trump has made a mockery of our values, made our citizens less safe and divided this country with his inciting and racist words and deeds. McConnell refused to consider Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court with 400 days left in his administration, yet he promises to force this upon us in less than 40 days left before an election and at a time when some states are already voting. Sheer hypocrisy and evil and it pisses me off. Regarding the second point, this candidate does not deserve to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She represents a direct threat to access to health care, a woman’s autonomy over her body, protection of civil rights, LGTBQ+ rights and voting rights. She’s wrong for the job."

Adam Christensen, the progressive Democrat aiming to replace Ted Yoho in north-central Florida by beating some shady character from Yoho's orbit, noted that "Amy Coney Barrett stands against everything we fight for: Medicare, civil rights, climate legislation, LGBTQ+ rights and women’s rights to choose. Mrs. Barrett would be on the bench for decades and would prevent any meaningful change from occurring. If she is nominated before this election we must expand the Supreme Court to allow for fair justices who will stand for the issues that matter to all Americans, not just the few." It'll be great seeing him and Mondaire Jones working on this together.


Nate McMurray is running for Congress in western New York, a rural/suburban district between Buffalo and Rochester that is the reddest district in New York and a district McMurray, running as a progressive with no help-- to put it mildly-- from the DCCC came within a third of a percentage point (1,087 votes) of winning in 2018. Presumably because he did so well, the vile, progressive-hating Blue Dog Cheri Bustos, who heads the DCCC, is again actively sabotaging McMurray's campaign. Meanwhile, the DCCC and it's corporate candidates can take a lesson from McMurray in how to talk with their voters about Trump's Supreme Court power-grab. McMurray to NY-27 voters today:

A mere week after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, the Trump administration speeds forward with its plan to install another extremist ideologue on the Supreme Court by Election Day in November, flouting the Constitution yet again in the process.

All this so the Republican party can cruelly do away with protections for preexisting conditions and go after women's health and protections for minority communities. Over 204,000 Americans are dead, seven million more infected and at risk of long-term effects of COVID-19. Over 40 million Americans are out of work and 12 million lost their health insurance since March. It is unconscionable that President Trump would choose a nominee who will deliver the death blow to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and rip health care away from millions of people during a deadly pandemic.

After Justice Ginsburg’s passing, I said that Trump’s choice for nomination would unravel Justice Ginsburg’s legacy of protecting choice and equality. Sadly, I was correct. And the hyper-political nature of this moment puts on full display his utter contempt for the American judicial system and the confirmation process.

There is no doubt that Trump will, if allowed to stack the highest court in the United States, ask them to overturn the ACA, including its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. If Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19, on top of conditions like cancer, diabetes, and pregnancy, will become pre-existing conditions that allow families to be denied healthcare coverage.

My opponent, who has only known a life of wealth and privilege, including lifelong access to excellent healthcare, has already signaled his support of Trump’s nominee. Chris Jacobs has no idea what it is like to be unemployed or struggling, without health insurance, in a health crisis. I do. The voters do. God help us.

Take A Look At The Future Of American Political Leadership: Mondaire Jones

 

This year, Mondaire Jones started to climb a hill most people thought was impossible. He began a primary campaign against one of Pelosi's most powerful allies in Congress, Nita Lowey, who was first elected to Congress when Mondaire was 2 years old, and had since risen to the position of chair of the House Appropriations Committee. NY-17 consists of northern and western Westchester County and all of Rockland County across the Hudson. It's a D+7 district that even Hillary was able to win easily against Trump (58.6% to 38.4%). But the district is mostly white and mostly rich (nearly a $100,000 media family income). Mondaire ran on working class issues, that have a lot of appeal to the upper middle class as well, the Green New Deal, Medicare-for-All, racial justice and police reform...

Soon after he declared his candidacy, Lowey announced she was retiring, setting off a flood of candidates who wanted the safe Democratic seat for themselves. And, after all, how hard would it be to defeat Jones, a black, gay progressive? Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas, state Assemblyman David Buchwald, right-wing state Senate "Democrat" David Carlucci and son-of-a-billionaire Adam Schleifer, each thought the seat should belong to them. Schleifer spent $5,197,000 of his inheritance on the race and Buchwald threw $612,342 of his own money in. Mondaire, who eschews corporate money, won and won big with 41.7% in an 8 person race-- more votes than the second and third place finishers combined:

So next question... what is Mondaire likely to be like when he's sitting in Congress? He's a natural-born reformer-- and he's eager to get started. One of his targets sits in the middle of a field of landmines: the Supreme Court. I had asked him about the danger of Trump's nominee abolishing women's Choice. "Unfortunately, the Trump Administration and the Republican Party have systematically undermined women’s reproductive freedom," he said. "The federal government must step in to protect civil rights-- and it cannot leave those rights up to the extreme conservative majority on the Supreme Court. As a member of Congress, I will work to codify Roe v. Wade by statute, repeal the Hyde Amendment, and ensure that any Medicare for All legislation includes coverage for the full range of reproductive services." (His GOP opponent is an anti-choice nut, completely out of step with the values of NY-17.)

But then he got into something related, but not specifically about Choice: He reminded me that McConnell "is poised to ram through a replacement of Justice Ginsburg before the November election, flagrantly breaking with the precedent he set just four years ago. That should confirm for the American people what many of us already knew: the Republican Party sees the Supreme Court as a partisan tool meant to serve its own political ends and further entrench the power of right-wing plutocrats. I refuse to stand by and let them. The constitution gives Congress the authority to add or subtract seats from the Supreme Court, and I fully intend to fight to expand our Court, if elected."

Addy Baird, writing for BuzzFeed News last week, hit the nail on the head about what kind of a congress member Jones is going to be: His Victory Was Major For Progressives. Now He Wants To Keep It Going By Expanding The Supreme Court. And not just by 2 justices; Jones wants to add 4. Jones told Baird that "in 2021, when Democrats have unified control of the federal government, that we will still have as a major obstacle having the progressive legislation that we enact upheld when it is challenged in the Supreme Court. If democracy is to be preserved, we have to expand the size of the Supreme Court and restore balance. … Roe v. Wade, the civil rights of LGBTQ people like myself, [and] the civil rights of racial minorities like myself are all at risk of being abridged by what may end up being a 6–3 conservative bloc on the Supreme Court."

That puts him at loggerheads with Biden who opposes expanding the Court. Last year Biden said that "We’ll live to rue that day." Baird wrote that "Jones says his party is already living that reality. 'Democrats are already ruing the day,' he said. 'I think Democrats rue every day… I disagree with those words by Vice President Biden over a year ago. And my expectation is that he will change his opinion now.'" YES! That's the kind of leadership we need in Congress in 2021.

And what originally caused Jones to win the Blue America endorsement during the primary, wasn't the Court. it was his stands on the other issues powering his campaign. "It's frankly absurd that, in the midst of a pandemic that has claimed the lives of 200,000 Americans, the debate over our predatory healthcare system has been completely shunted aside," he reiterated on Friday.  

This fight is personal for me. After my grandfather died of cancer, I watched helplessly as my grandmother worked well past the age of retirement just to pay for the high cost of prescription drugs and medical procedures not fully covered by Medicare. When I quit my job to try to better my community by running for Congress, I lost my health insurance. That is not a rational system.

I believe health care should be a human right in a nation as wealthy as our own, not tied to employment status or economic means. It has never been clearer to me, and to millions of Americans across this country, that we need Medicare for All. 

I have every confidence that Mondaire Jones will be working alongside AOC, Ed Markey and other climate hawks to fill in the details of the Green New Deal. He told us last week that "In the past month, America has watched in horror as the West Coast was engulfed in flames, and the Gulf Coast was inundated with hurricanes. It is beyond debate at this point that climate change is real, it is here already, and it is disproportionately impacting our most vulnerable communities. The question is, what are we going to do about it? I know where I stand. We absolutely must mobilize our collective resources to confront the challenge of climate change with the urgency required. We must invest in sustainable infrastructure with a particular eye on our Black and brown communities that have experienced generations of environmental racism. Anything less is tantamount to climate denial."

If you're talking about the future of leadership in the Democratic Party and in Congress and in this country, you're talking about Mondaire Jones. "This week, like so many weeks," he said, "it is so difficult to be Black in America. To be reminded that property is worth more than Black life. People protesting the murder of Breonna Taylor are being punished more harshly than the people who actually killed Breonna Taylor. That's absurd, and, people all across this country have had it. I may let myself feel the pain of injustice, but I do not despair. I remain deeply committed to the fight for a more just America. The fact is, our criminal legal system is working exactly as its designers intended. That’s why we need to reimagine that system."

Let's reimagine a system where it's men and women like Mondaire Jones leading out party instead of representatives of special interests who have long ago lost touch with the spirit of fairness and reform that have, in the past, made the Democratic Party worthwhile.

With The Passing Of RBG, Will The Issue Of Choice Help Or Hurt Democrats Running For Congress?

 

Right after it was announced that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away, Trumpist crackpot Angela Stanton-King sent out the above Tweet. Her opponent, Democratic state Senator Nikema Williams has been a fearless advocate for women for her entire adult life and worked as a vice president for public Policy at Planned Parenthood for a decade. Protecting women's choice isn't an issue she's going to run away from.

Early Monday morning, Omaha Democrat Kara Eastman-- the progressive candidate running for the congressional seat held by Trump sycophant Donald Bacon-- told me that "With the tragic passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, I've heard from many voters in Nebraska about their fears that a more conservative Supreme Court will vote to reverse Roe v. Wade. While I support Roe and I believe that women constitutionally deserve to be able to make healthcare decisions affecting their bodies in consultation with their doctors without government interference, I know as well that Rep. Don Bacon would rather have us back in the pre-Roe dark ages of back-alley abortions and second-class status for women. The fact is that if you are really 'pro-life' you would support universal pre-natal health care, you would favor Medicare for All (which isn't much different than the socialised medicine that Don Bacon has enjoyed his entire career), and you would push for massive economic investments in jobs and infrastructure that will lead to a safe recovery from Covid."

On Sunday, the NY Times noted that Abortion Was Back-Burnered In The Presidential Race. Not Anymore. "For months, abortion has been relegated to a back burner in the presidential campaign, eclipsed by a worldwide pandemic, an economic crisis and protests over racial justice. But the death of Justice Ginsburg and the looming confirmation battle to replace her could force the candidates to discuss a volatile issue six weeks before Election Day that carries significant political risks for both sides, even as it energizes portions of their bases. Mainstream views on abortion are more moderate than those of the activists on either wing, with most Americans saying that abortions should be legal with some restrictions. An all-out fight over abortion could further alienate the more moderate suburban voters both sides are competing for. Democrats especially must navigate their own divisions over how far to push an issue that Mr. Biden has long found personally uncomfortable."

I'll leave Biden's response to the centrist spin doctors he has running his campaign. Instead, I am interested in knowing how the GOP rush to ramrod through a far-right anti-Choice Supreme Court justice who wants to end women's Choice is going to play out in congressional races around the country. Kara Eastman is running in a 50-50 purple district and her forthright position on Choice shows conviction... and courage. Same for California progressive Audrey Denney, who's running for a red California seat held by anti-Choice fanatic Dog LaMalfa. Many in the district are anti-Choice but that isn't keeping Denney from speaking out loudly and clearly. "Choice has always been a top issue for me," she told me yesterday. "I’ve been endorsed by EMILY’s List, Planned Parenthood, and Vote Pro Choice. Our polling shows it, along with access to medical care, a top issues with some of our important voter groups." She issued this statement to voters in CA-01:  

This is a terrifying moment in U.S. history, when 46 years of precedent for recognizing women’s right to privacy and sovereignty over their own bodies is being systematically dismantled. The policymakers who have put forward these archaic bans on safe and legal abortion claim to be doing so because they value human life.

I deeply respect the sanctity of life. I believe that life is created by God, and I believe that every woman has the right to choose whether or not she will participate in bringing life into being. No one has the right to tell her that she must. Making the decision to end a pregnancy is a difficult and tragic one-- but having the right to make that decision is foundational to protecting women’s health, privacy, and well-being.

If the people who wrote these laws truly cared for the sanctity of life, they would be working tirelessly to reduce our country’s maternal mortality rate (currently the worst among industrialized nations), but instead they are limiting or eliminating care, and more mothers are dying during childbirth. They would be investing in initiatives to improve infant and child health and access to early education and child care. They would be fighting for paid family leave, so that parents have adequate time to regain their own health and support their new child. They would be losing sleep over the 12 million children in this country who will go to bed hungry because their parents are trapped in poverty, unable to earn a living wage.

I imagine a world where fewer women face the difficult decisions surrounding ending a pregnancy. Statistics have proven since Roe v. Wade, the path to that kind of world is not through restrictive legislation around abortion. That path is achieved through policies that support women and families, and make it easier for families to thrive in our country.

The legislators who support abortion bans have failed us. They have failed their constituents. They have failed our nation. Their time is up.

Kathy Ellis, is the progressive Democrat running to replace Trump enabler Jason Smith in the reddest district in Missouri, the eighth congressional district in the southeast corner of the state, where Missouri comes together with Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and southern Illinois. The PVI is R+24 and Trump beat Hillary there 75.4% to 21.0%. Perhaps counterintuitively, polling shows that most voters in the district are pro-Choice. Jason Smith certainly isn't. Kathy's campaign has been advertising her endorsement by Planned Parenthood extensively and she certainly isn't backing away from her pledge to protect Choice. "I've always been a proud pro-choice candidate," she told me, "and protecting the right to choose is not a foreign fight for Missourians who have been up against staunchly anti-choice bills for over a decade. But now, with the passing of Justice Ginsburg, this fight has certainly gained importance. In a rural district such as mine, we've actually seen most folks fall into the pro-choice category, and when the Missouri legislature attempted to pass a full abortion ban, with no exceptions, we saw a huge increase in pro-choice organizing in the District. When I first announced my campaign, I was advised to avoid this issue, but for me, protecting a person's reproductive freedom is at the heart of why I'm running for office. I've always been proudly pro-choice, and I'll always be honest about who I am."

Republican Chris Jacobs is another garden variety Trump sycophant and anti-Choice ass. Typical e-mail to his supporters (last week):

The progressive Democrat running for his western New York congressional seat is our old friend Nate McMurray. Earlier, McMurray told me that "The appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court became a political fight to the death in 2018 just before the midterm elections. Now the unthinkable has happened, and Justice Ginsburg's death has launched us into another situation where she hasn't even been laid to rest and Mitch McConnell is salivating over another chance to put his hypocrisy on full display-- just 43 days away from the election. Just as COVID-19 magnified the issues with our healthcare system, RBG's death reminds us all that even institutions like the Supreme Court are not safe from the corrosion of toxic political forces. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Affordable Care Act on November 10th. Should the Republican party have its way, millions of Americans will be thrown off their health insurance before the second wave of the pandemic hits. Reproductive rights, labor rights, civil rights, and so much more are on the line. The GOP has sunk so low-- it's not a time for us to 'go high;' we've got to fight like hell for the future of this country."

There's no question about where Mondaire Jones was coming down on this issue. One of the best hopes for progressive leadership in the next session of Congress, he's running to hold an open, narrowly blue district. ""Unfortunately, the Trump Administration and the Republican Party have systematically undermined women’s reproductive freedom," he said this morning. "The federal government must step in to protect civil rights-- and it cannot leave those rights up to the extreme conservative majority on the Supreme Court. As a member of Congress, I will work to codify Roe v. Wade by statute, repeal the Hyde Amendment, and ensure that any Medicare for All legislation includes coverage for the full range of reproductive services. That’s why I’m proud to be endorsed by leading pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood Action Fund and NARAL Pro-Choice America. My opponent, meanwhile, is anti-choice and intends to be a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom, which could not be more out of step with the values of our district."

Of course it isn't just in congressional and federal races where the "new" issue is being injected into the election. I spoke with Heidi Campbell yesterday. The mayor of Oak Hill and a state Senate candidate in Tennessee, she is on the verge of ousting anti-Choice Republican Steve Dickerson and flipping a red seat blue. You can help her do that here. I asked her how the Supreme Court being threatened with another anti-Choice extremist is playing out in her suburban Nashville district.

"Devastatingly, she told me, "the October surprise came early this year-- not to say that there won’t be several more, in this accelerating-ly chaotic wreck of a year. Each time something like this happens though, we have to reassess the dynamics of our race. I am running for state Senate in Tennessee’s District 20 which is gerrymandered to carve out the conservative pockets of Nashville’s metropolitan area. This district has been trending blue and went for Clinton in the last election. In fact, two separate polls show us narrowly ahead of the incumbent. Democrats have not flipped a state Senate seat in Tennessee in over fifteen years, and we have a great shot at flipping this one. The SCOTUS appointment to fill RBG’s seat cuts both ways of course-- both sides are energized by it, and it should strengthen the position of candidates like myself who are running in districts that are gaining Democratic voters. But this also means that Republicans are going to spend as much as they can to hang on to their seats, and in our race they have purchased several hundred thousand dollars worth of television ad time to run attack ads against our campaign over the next five weeks. Our team is fighting with every fiber of our beings to flip this seat, in a state where anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant (and many other) bills are intentionally seeded to wend their way up to the Supreme Court. We simply do not have as much money as the Republicans, and since we’re not going to have election finance reform in the next six weeks, we have GOT to raise as much as we can to win."

 

Republicans Still Stalling On Pandemic Relief For Working Families

Yesterday, the U.S. reached a new, hideous-- but soon to be forgotten-- threshold in the pandemic: 6.5 million cases. There will have been a quarter million deaths-- most preventable-- before election day. The economy-- the real one, not the Wall Street one-- is a shambles. The Trump Regime response? A government shutdown in 3 weeks because they can't agree on a pandemic relief bill? Mnuchin and Pelosi say it won't happen but McConnell sure seems like he's on the way to making sure it does. He can't even get enough support in his own caucus to pass an austerity-oriented bill and refuses to allow a vote of the bill the House passed in May (since it would likely pass the Senate). The senators are back from their vacations but there's no apparent movement. "Republicans," wrote John Bresnahan, "are eager to raise the pressure on Democrats, but their latest gambit may fall short," as McConnell as his cronies scrambled to round up votes for a narrow economic stimulus package they introduced yesterday and hope to put on the floor this week so as to hammer Democrats for opposing and being unwilling to compromise. McConnell's $500 billion proposal includes $300-per-week federal unemployment payments on top of regular state benefits, another round of funding to aid small and medium-sized businesses, liability protections for businesses, schools and charities, and $105 billion for education. Meanwhile, the Democrats have been negotiating with themselves to bring the House bill down from $3.4 trillion to $2 trillion, making their own bargaining position weaker, as usual.

In fact, Bresnahan reported that Senate Republicans are privately playing up reports that Blue Dogs, New Dems and other conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party in the House "are pressing Pelosi to compromise on a relief package. They're circulating quotes from a dozen Democrats in swing House races calling for additional economic help for financially strapped Americans."

The Heroes Act passed May 15 with just one Republican vote but with 13 anti-working class worthless fake Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with the GOP. The congressional class enemies in Congress as "Dems" who voted no are constant shit-eaters Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA), Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC), Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS), Abby Finkenauer (closet Blue Dog-IA), Jared Golden (Blue Dog-ME), Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK), Conor Lamb (closet Blue Dog-PA), Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA), Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM) and Susan Wild (New Dem-PA).

"The White House and Senate Republicans have made clear that they still do not comprehend the scale of this disaster or the urgent needs of our communities and the American people," Pelosi said in a statement on Friday. "House Democrats have come to the negotiating table willing to compromise, and we will continue reaching out until we achieve a fair agreement that meets the needs of all Americans."

Senate Democrats from Schumer on down have slammed McConnell for sitting out talks on the coronavirus relief package. While the Kentucky Republican said the key is for the White House and Democratic leaders to reach a deal first, he's also faced a challenge in balancing the competing factions within his own conference.

A large bloc of Senate Republicans, concerned about the tidal wave of deficit spending this year, believes the U.S. economy will recover without additional government aid. McConnell, however, also has a number of vulnerable GOP senators up for reelection in less than two months, and they've been pressing him for action.

Senate Democrats are largely counting on the endangered GOP incumbents to help push the Republican leadership toward an agreement.

"It's still so hard for me to imagine Mitch McConnell packing up the Senate for the election home stretch having not even tried to negotiate in good faith," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT). "I've stubbornly stuck to this idea that Republican senators at the very least will be driven to get something done by their fear of backlash from voters."

After McConnell's bill started floating around, Pelosi remarked that "Republicans appear dead-set on another bill which doesn't come close to addressing the problems and is headed nowhere. If anyone doubts McConnell’s true intent is anything but political, just look at the bill. This proposal is laden with poison pills Republicans know Democrats would never support."

Bloomberg News reported that "The stumbling block is aid to state and local governments," something the Democrats insist on and the GOP is dead set against. The Trumpists characterize the aid as a reward for poorly run, mainly Democratic states. Pelosi in Tuesday’s interview that the GOP has "excuses," not real reasons for opposing the effort. She suggested that restrictions could be placed to meet any objections. San Francisco progressive state Senate candidate Jackie Fielder, told me that "the pandemic has proven what we knew all along: wealth doesn't trickle from the top down, it flows-- or is extracted-- from the bottom up. When working people lost their incomes due to COVID, our economy ground to a halt. When billionaires concentrated greater wealth than ever and major corporations like Amazon saw record growth, everyday people didn't feel the boost. Our elected officials have balanced budgets on the backs of workers rather than demanding that the richest individuals and companies pay their fair share. I'm running for State Senate to change that. We need to learn the painful lessons taught by this pandemic and resist the temptation to return to the status quo. That's why I've committed to taxing millionaires, billionaires, and the biggest corporations in order to fund comprehensive social services and ensure fair wages and protections for workers."

McConnell tried and failed for weeks to get most of the Senate’s 53 Republicans on board with the broader $1 trillion plan in the face of opposition from deficit hawks concerned about adding to this year’s $3.3 trillion budget deficit. He’s previously said that as many 20 Senate Republicans were against any additional spending.

...The looming election will create pressure points for Trump as well as for incumbents in the House and Senate. The White House is pushing for stimulus payments for individuals to go out before the Nov. 3 election.

“Nobody wants to give direct payments to American families more than President Donald Trump,” Vice President Mike Pence said on CNBC Friday.

Immediately before their August break, two Senate Republicans trailing their Democratic challengers in polls-- Susan Collins of Maine and Martha McSally of Arizona-- helped introduce a bill that has a higher unemployment benefit enhancement than the one in the scaled-down proposal.

In the House, Democrats from swing districts are poised to increase pressure on Pelosi to get a deal. The [far right, anti-working class] Blue Dog Coalition sent Pelosi a letter on Aug. 21 urging compromise, and vulnerable first-term Iowa [ultra-conservative, anti-worker New Dem] Cindy Axne followed up last week with a letter demanding action on a smaller package.

...Connecticut Democratic Representative Jim Himes said he thinks Trump ultimately will push to get a deal done later in the month if he’s still trailing Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in polls.

“The president of the United States understands one thing and perhaps one thing only, and that is what is good for him personally,” he said. “And it is good for him personally to get some kind of a deal done.”

Mondaire Jones is the progressive Democrat running for an open upstate New York seat in a swingy suburban district that includes chunks of Westchester and Rockland counties. This morning, he was blunt and went right to the point about GOP obstructionism: "To date, Republicans in Congress have only provided Americans with a meager $1,200, even as this pandemic stretches into its seventh month. They are inexplicably refusing to fund our state and local governments, forcing cuts to crucial services like public education and Medicaid. The Republican Party has the power to avert mass suffering, and it is simply choosing not to. It is unfit to govern."

Last Night's Primary Election Results-- Wins And Losses

Ballots are still being counted almost everywhere. Kentucky has already announced that there will be no final vote count until June 30-- which is when the state's two biggest counties, Jefferson (Louisville) and Fayette (Lexington) plan to release their results. Both are considered strongholds for Charles Booker and not a single vote is in the preliminary totals, which represent the 2,005 counted precincts out of a statewide total of 3,685-- 54.41%. This morning Schumer's establishment candidate, Amy McGrath led progressive Charles Booker 27,668 (44.7%) to 22,564 (36.5%), with a second progressive, Mike Broihier a distant third with 3,900 votes (6.3%). As of June 3rd, Massie had raised almost $41 million to Booker's $788,525. She spent $21,492,634 to his $503,623.

The only other Kentucky contest worth noting was the Republican primary in the 4th district, 12 counties that go from the suburbs east of Louisville and south of Cincinnati right into coal mining country as far as the West Virginia border. Trump and the GOP DC Establishment made an attempt to replace independent-minded, libertarian incumbent Thomas Massie with extremist Trumpist robot Todd McMurtry. As of the last FEC deadline, Massie had spent $996,338 to McMurtry's $328,026. An ad hoc Trumpist SuperPAC called Civic PAC spent $132,500 smearing Massie. It didn't work and he has apparently won in a landslide. With 85.42% of precincts counted (463 out of 542) Massie has 16,801 (88%) votes to McMurtry's 2,300 (12%).

Before we get to New York, there were also some relatively sleepy contests in Virginia-- except one. Progressive champion Qasim Rashid beat Lavangelene Williams 21,768 (52.8%) to 19,469 (47.2%) in the first congressional district, an amalgam of 18 almost random counties from the exurbs of DC to the exurbs of Richmond plus James City and Fredericksburg city. Most of the voters live in very blue Prince William County, very red Hanover County and swingy Stafford County. The district PVI is R+8 but Trump just won it with 53.6% in 2016 and incumbent Rob Wittman was reelected last cycle with just 55.2% and could be ousted by Qasim in November.

Now, New York. Let's go through the congressional results district by district, although I want to begin with NY-14, the Bronx and Queens district won in 2018 by AOC. A transpartisan coalition-- funded largely by Wall Street-- backed a Wall Street Republican pretending to be a Democrat, Michelle Caruso-Cabrera and spent immense sums of money smearing AOC with an intensity and virulence no one ever sees in a Democratic primary. The voters weren't buying it and AOC kicked her ass, 27,103 (72.6%) to 7,254 (19.4%). Two vanity candidates drew almost 3,000 votes (close to 8%). Caruso-Cabrera can't switch back to the GOP and run as a Republican in November-- although she is evacuating her Queens apartment and moving back to Trump Tower-- so the GOP is running some guy named John Cummings. You can contribute to AOC's November campaign here.

NY-01 is eastern Long Island, most of Suffolk County and Democrats were vying to see who would take on GOP incumbent Lee Zeldin. There was some fear that the two moderately progressive candidates, Perry Gershon (who Zeldin beat in 2018, 51.5% to 47.4%) and Nancy Goroff, would split progressive votes and allow a more conservative Democrat, Bridget Fleming to win the nomination. Instead, there's an incredibly tight race for number one between Gershon and Goroff, that is unlikely to be decided 'til every last vote is counted and, probably, recounted. As of this morning with all 473 precincts counted:

• Perry Gershon- 5,166 (35.5%)
• Nancy Goroff- 5,022 (34.4%)
• Bridget Fleming- 4,062 (27.9%)
• Gregory-John Fischer 322 (2.2%)

NY-02, the south shore Long Island district that includes parts of both Nassau and Suffolk, should have been a hotspot election... but wasn't. Peter King announced her retirement and Republican Andrew Garbarino will run in his place. The DCCC picked Jackie Gordon-- a typical DCCC pick-- as their candidate and she beat Patricia Maher, who has run unsuccessfully against King before. Sleepy race and Gordon, predictably won with about 73% of the vote (374 precincts out of 524 counted-- about 70%).

The north shore district, which includes some of Suffolk County and a tiny bit of Queens is mostly Nassau and the incumbent is New Dem Tom Suozzi. With just 45.6% of precincts accounted for, he seems to have beat back a weak challenge from the left by Melanie D'Arrigo, 58.9% to 32.7%. It's considered a swing district but Suozzi is an effective and popular congressman and is likely to beat Republican George Santos by something like 60-40% as he did in 2018 against Republican Dan DeBono.

One of my big disappointments of last night was Gregory Meeks' apparent win over Democratic Socialist Shan Chowdhury, although as of this morning, only 39 of 492 precincts have been counted. Predictably-- Meeks being the Queens County machine boss-- NY-05 was the capital of voter suppression and election fraud. I spoke with Shan this morning and his lawyers are investigating how Meeks was able to steal the election and what they can do about it.

The next district with a seriously contested primary was NY-09 a Brooklyn district stretching from Sheepshead Bay to eastern Park Slope, with Prospect Park, Brownsville, Brooklyn College, Flatbush, part of Midwood and Crown Heights in between. Yvette Clarke has one of the most progressive voting records in Congress-- and the second most progressive of any New Yorker in Congress (even higher on the ProgressivePunch list than AOC!) but was primaried from the left again. Grassroots super-progressives Adem Bunkeddeko and Isiah James took about 27% of the vote between them. With all 532 precincts reporting, Clarke was reelected with 62.3%.

In the 10th district (incongruously Manhattan's West Side and Brooklyn's most Hasidic neighborhoods) Jerry Nadler beat back two opponents, an internet progressive and a gay Zionist, former Andrew Yang staffer, to win with 61.8%.

Tragically, odious Blue Dog Max Rose had no primary opponent in the Staten Island, south Brooklyn 11th district. The NRCC chosen candidate, Nicole Malliotakis, won the Republican primary with 70.4%.

In the 12th district there is an incredibly tight race that will probably be finalized next week. Wall Street shill Carolyn Maloney may be defeated by Suraj Patel in this Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens district.

NY-15 in the South Bronx was a real clustefuck on several levels. Longtime progressive incumbent Jose Serrano decided to retire, triggering a complicated primary with a dozen candidates, each appealing to a narrow segment of the population. The common enemy was pretend Democrat Ruben Diaz, Sr., an anti-Choice, homophobic sociopath and Trump supporter and there was tremendous anxiety that the more progressive candidates would split the vote and elect Diaz, who has the most name-recognition in the district. With all 490 precincts counted, this is how the top vote getters fared:

The most closely-watched race in the state was for the Bronx-Westchester district where incumbent Eliot Engel was the designated Joe Crowley of 2020 and faced off against progressive reformer Jamaal Bowman. The most corrupt of the Democratic establishment backed Engel-- Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bob Menendez, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff as well as the DCCC, and a pack of sleazy local politicians. Jamaal was endorsed by virtually every progressive organization in the country as well as by Bernie, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Ayanna Pressley, Katie Porter, Zephyr Teachout, Marianne Williamson and progressive state legislators Alessandra Biaggi and Jessica Ramos. With 91.5% of the precincts in, Jamaal won 21,851 (60.9%) to 12,769 (35.6%), an ignominious finish to Engel's career as Netanyahu's top shill in the House. This was Jamaal's statement this morning:

From the very beginning, we anchored our campaign in the fight for racial and economic justice. We spoke the truth-- about the police, about systemic racism, about inequality-- and it resonated in every part of the district.

Many doubted that we could overcome the power and money of a 31-year incumbent. But the results show that the people of NY-16 aren’t just ready for change-- they’re demanding it.

We brought people together across race, across class, across religion, across gender, to fight for justice, to fight for equality, and to fight to create a country that works for all of us. We didn’t let them divide us. And we did it all without accepting a dime from corporate PACs or lobbyists.

The world has changed. Congress needs to change too. But if we can take on entrenched power and wealthy interests here in Westchester and the Bronx, then we can do it all across this country.

I’m a Black man who was raised by a single mother in a housing project. That story doesn’t usually end in Congress. But today, that 11-year old boy who was beaten by police is about to be your next Representative.

I cannot wait to get to Washington and cause problems for the people maintaining the status quo.

Just north of NY-16 is the 17th, also in Westchester plus Rockland County. The incumbent Pelosi-ally is retiring and Mondaire Jones, the most progressive candidate running, had already declared he would primary her. Instead he beat a pack of corporate big money Dems and right-wing state Senator David Carlucci. Mondaire is black and gay and progressive, not the profile anyone would have predicted for the 17th.

In Syracuse, NY-24 nominated progressive Dana Balter by a wide margin (64.5% to 35.5%) over conservative Democrat Francis Conole. In the Rochester district (25), conservative New Dem won renomination against progressive challenger Robin Wilt, who picked up 35.2% of the vote.

And the open 27th in western New York, between the suburbs of Buffalo and the suburbs west of Rochester, had a special election to fill the open seat left behind by Trump ally Chris Collins when he was found guilty on multiple economic fraud charges. An heir to a fortune, Republican Chris Jacobs beat Democrat Nate McMurray but the two will face off again in November's general election, when McMurray is thought to have a better chance to win. You can contribute to Nate's general election campaign-- and to the general election campaigns of Mondaire Jones and Jamaal Bowman-- by clicking on the 2020 Blue America congressional thermometer on the right.

One last thing: there was a special election primary runoff in North Carolina yesterday where 24 year old new-comer Madison Cawthorn defeated Lynda Bennett for the GOP nomination to replace Trump's latest chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Both Meadows and Trump had endorsed Bennett. Cawthorn will now face retired Air Force Col. Moe Davis, the Democratic nominee in the heavily Republican district (PVI is R+14, the reddest in the state, and Trump won the district in 2016 with 57.2%). And, yes, he's a total Trumpist.

A Republican soon-to-be congressman (right)

Tuesday Could Be A Big Day For Progressives In New York-- Maybe Bigger Than Anyone Imagines

Through a Politico prism, the grassroots effort to elect Jamaal Bowman to Congress is a twisted power grab by "the left." Holly Otterbein wrote that "Desperate for victory after watching the presidential nomination slip through their fingers, progressives have found a new cause to rally around. Across the country, they’re channeling their grief, volunteer muscle and small-dollar donations into Jamaal Bowman, a left-wing candidate in New York trying to oust decades-long incumbent Congressman Eliot Engel... [T]heir efforts have also exposed party fissures, spurring Democratic establishment powerhouses such as Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn to throw their support behind Engel," while Bowman has been endorsed by Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Ayanna Pressley and virtually every credible progressive political group in America.

Otterbein quoted a local ex-candidate, Andom Ghebreghiorgis, who ran, briefly as a progressive, got no traction, dropped out, and endorsed Bowman: "What is that left phrase? We just need a win. People are investing a lot emotionally in this race because they see it as a down-ballot race where the policies of a Bernie, for example, which weren’t able to achieve victory on a national level, can at least be achieved on a congressional level."

Otterbein: "The clash between heavyweights like Clinton and Sanders has made New York’s 16th District race one of the most-watched primaries of the cycle-- and one of the most telling."

I think Blue America was one of the first national groups to endorse Jamaal and we did it nearly a year ago, long before any of the big name political leaders jumped into the race-- Jamaal Bowman-- The Bronx Could Wind Up With The Most Great Members Of Congress Anywhere In America. Although we noted that "Eliot Engel is a New Dem in a district that is far more progressive than he is," the endorsement post is all about Jamaal, with no further mentions of Engel.

Engel isn't the same kind of corrupt villain that Joe Crowley is, nor the same kind of villain that Dan Lipinski is. The best critique of him is that he's absent and no longer a part of his consistency and that his interests are more conjoined with those of Benjamin Netanyahu than with the struggling working families of Westchester and the Bronx. But the reason for Jamaal's traction-- irregardless of the typical Beltway-centric version-- is all about Jamaal. Engel is rated a gentleman's "C" by progressive punch-- not an "F" or even a "D." But there is no reason that NY-16 shouldn't be represented by someone with an "A," which is exactly what Bowman's platform adds up to. New York has 7 members of Congress (out of 21 Democrats) with "A" scores-- AOC, of course, and members like Jerry Nadler, Adriano Espaillat, Yvette Clarke, Nydia Velazquez, José Serrano, even Hakeem Jeffries! New Yorkers should expect no less... especially not in districts, like NY-16 with a PVI of D+24 and where Trump attracted just 22.5% of the vote.

Engel has a huge establishment push working for him now-- and a bipartisan one at that. Republicans know they can't ever win in NY-16 so they're supporting the less progressive contender, Eliot Engel. On Tuesday, Ryan Grim and Akela Lacy reported how Republican money, through a GOP SuperPAC, Americans for Tomorrow’s Future, is flowing into the effort to keep Engel in Congress. The blatantly Republican Americans for Tomorrow’s Future PAC has been funneling money into the Engels campaign through the anti-Bernie/anti-progressive Democratic establishment PAC, Democratic Majority for Israel (an arm of AIPAC). Republicans maxing out to Trump and also putting money through these operations into defeating Bowman. "Engel," wrote Grim and Lacy, "is on the receiving end of nearly $1 million of outside big money and counting, including funding from two other dark-money groups that can’t be traced but who only support anti-progressive candidates.

Despite Engel's big financial advantage-- as of June 3, he raised $1,997,944 to Bowman's $965,857-- the only public polling in the race show's Bowman leading with double digits. Asked this week if they would vote for Bowman or Engel voters picked Bowman over Engel 41-31 with 27% undecided. When the undecided voters were asked who they are leaning towards, Bowman had an even bigger advantage: 40-18%.

East of Scarsdale, north of Rye, north and west of Ardsley and north of Hastings-on-Hudson, you can walk out of Engel's district and into NY-17, where Nita Lowey is retiring and a hot, crowded primary is underway in another sure-thing blue district (D+7), where Trump got 38.4% of the vote in 2016. Seven Democrats are in contention-- including one extreme right Blue Dog-type, state Senator David Carlucci, a bunch of rich people (one of whom, Adam Schleifer, a big PhRMA guy, has self-funded $4 million of his own into the race) and one viable progressive, Mondaire Jones. A new poll of likely primary voters by PPP, released yesterday, shows Mondaire leading significantly:

• Mondaire Jones- 25%
• Adam Schleifer- 14%
• Evelyn Farkas- 14%
• David Carlucci- 11%
• David Buchwald- 8%
• Asha Castleberry-Hernandez- 3%
• Allison Fine-2%

Jamaal Bowman and Mondaire Jones-- not to mention Charles Booker, the Senate candidate in Kentucky-- are the candidates who are getting the most attention in the progressive blogosphere right now and we are feeling increasingly confident about all three. But there's another candidate we're extremely excited about in New York too, Shan Chowdhury, the Democratic Socialist taking on the city's most corrupt politician, Greg Meeks. Meeks has been trying to keep the primary under the radar-- and that could be his downfall. Shan is young, progressive and is being drastically outspent. If he wins, he's going to be Congress' most shake-it-up member. Despite the finance disparity and with just six days left, things have changed for Shan's race. His campaign has worked, for 14 months, to expand the size of the electorate in New York's 5th Congressional district. His campaign has sent over 750,000 texts, made over 100,000 phone calls and is running advertising on almost 10 different platforms in just the last month alone (print and digital). Chowdhury's aggressive strategy to expand the electorate is a problem for Meeks. In NY-05, voter turnout is abysmal. Despite there being over half a million registered voters, Congressional primary turnout in 2016 was only 8,635. That is barely 1% turnout. Meeks has never faced a real primary challenge and as a result his machine has been able to solidify a small base that turns out. That is why expanding the electorate has been an effective strategy for Shan. I just got word that, based upon internal numbers and absentee ballots tracked, Shaniyat is very likely going to upset Rep. Meeks and win next Tuesday.

Despite being widely overlooked, due to a lack of institutional support, his chances of winning are higher than almost any other campaign in New York City. According to the BOE, only 15,000 absentee ballots have been requested in the district. That is lower than any other district in the City. Taking into account Shan's campaign's incredible outreach-- having already seny over a million texts-- and the work his team has done expanding the electorate, this means they are going into election day with better odds of winning then even the incumbent! If their internal numbers reinforce the reality that on June 23rd, they are going to shock the political world-- even louder than Bowman, Jones and Booker will.

Even being so close to election day, contributions are vital to Chowdhury's ability to pull this off. They are going to need a tremendous amount of money in order to properly execute their get out the vote strategy. They plan to distribute 100,000 pieces of literature, flyers and posters between today and election day. They are also going to need the resources to send a broadcast election reminder text to everyone in the district (400,000 people). Let me be clear, contributions today will allow them to secure this victory and change-- perhaps forever-- what is thought possible in electoral politics. The Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right is how you can contribute to Shan Chowdhury, Jamaal Bowman and Mondaire Jones in one fell swoop. And, by the way, those who wonder how last minute money gets to the campaigns on time-- Act Blue wires the contributions daily.