Deporting Latino Military Vets Is Part Of Trump's Ugly Racism And Xenophobia

Just judging my her voting record, Kyrsten Sinema is the very worst Democrat in Congress. When Ryan and McCarthy talk about how "bipartisan" some toxic piece of legislation that forwards Trump's agenda is, they're talking about Sinema's support. According the ProgressivePunch, Sinema's crucial vote score for the current session is the lowest of any Democrats in history-- 12.50... and in a strongly blue district. There are Republicans with more progressive voting records-- including Louie Gohmert! Obviously, they rate her an "F" but her lifetime crucial vote score is nearly as abysmal-- 35.34. Only 3 Democrats, all very right-wing freshmen, have worse records: Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ) and Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)... and all 3 are in more swingy districts. So why bring up Sinema today? I want to use her as an example, not just as an example of a stinking pile of garbage, but as an example of someone with a perfect voting record on issues that impact her directly. She's, she's a rotgut conservative who deserves to be driven out of Congress-- also unbelievably corrupt on a Wasserman Schultz level f bribe-taking-- but when it comes to her own identity politics... she's as pure as the driven snow. Women's issues? Sinema is fabulous. She's a woman. LGBT issues? She's fierce (well... she votes right.) She (loudly) claims to be bisexual. Issues that don't impact her personally though-- pure Republican. There are others like that, of course, but she's the worst of the worst.

Today I was happy to hear from L.A. Congresswoman Nanette Barragán that she spent part of the 4th of July weekend down in Tijuana visiting the Deported Veterans Support House there and meeting with veterans who have been deported from the United States. Nanette, president of the freshman class, has an across the board 91.30 ProgressivePunch crucial vote score, the 6th best of any freshman, and regardless of issue, Nanette can be found fighting the good fight.

“It was heartbreaking to see my constituent, Hector Barajas from Compton, still proudly wearing his U.S. military uniform, but unable to live with his family in the country for which he fought,” said Rep. Barragán. “I am grateful to Governor Jerry Brown for issuing Hector a pardon. I am working to do everything in my power to help Hector rightfully receive his U.S. citizenship."

Barajas served in the Army for 5 1/2 years. He had problems with substance abuse, served his time, but upon his release was deported to Mexico. He now runs “The Bunker,” or the Deported Veteran Support House, a shelter to help other veterans who have been deported.

“It was shocking to learn that veterans receive citizenship after dying while in active duty and deported veterans are flown back to the United States to be buried with full military honors upon their death. Yet, the government will not allow them to live in the country for which they had fought,” continued Barragán. “These veterans have done their time. They deserve to return home on their own two feet, not to return home in a box.

“Anyone who fights for the freedom of our country should be granted citizenship. Period. Along with my colleagues in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I will continue to fight for our veterans and to make sure they know they are just as American as their brothers and sisters in uniform.”

Naturalization used to be part of basic training, but the laws changed. As of January 2017, there were 10,644 noncitizens currently serving in the U.S. military and an additional 11,524 noncitizens under reserve status. The greatest numbers of lawful permanent resident (LPR) service members come from the Philippines, Mexico, Jamaica, South Korea, and the Dominican Republic. Overall, there are about 608,000 living foreign-born veterans of the U.S. armed forces from nations around the world.

Many LPR service members are told by recruiters that they can quickly gain citizenship for themselves and their family after serving honorably. However, they are not advised that citizenship is not granted automatically and that they must actively seek citizenship through the standard (although expedited) application process. A 2016 report by the ACLU estimates that the United States has deported more than 230 veterans.

Raul Grijalva was with her for the trip to meet with the veterans and, like her, he has been an across-the-board champion for justice and equality and for progressive values. 5 other members of Congress went along for the ride-- all Hispanic-Americans and, generally speaking, a pretty conservative bunch. To be fair, Joaquin Castro (New Dem-TX) and Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM) are better described a centrist establishment types than as conservatives. The other 3, though, are are pretty bad, not as bad as Sinema... but close: Lou Correa (Blue Dog-CA), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX) and Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA). Grijalva and Barragán are the only ones with good ProgressivePunch scores. The others range from mediocre-- Castro with a "D"-- to Vargas, Lujan Grisham, Correa and Gonzalez all with ugly "F" scores. "F" except on the identity politics issue, where they find themselves an abused minority. Sinema stands up for gays because she's gay and is a vile conservative on other issues. Correa may be as bad as they come on bread-and-butter issues (especially when lobbyists are handing out the bribery checks) but on specifically Latino issues... well, he knows where his own bread is buttered. Principles and values have nothing to do with it, which is why members who are even doing a good thing (for a change) are still loathsome and unworthy of the kind of praise Grijalva and Barragán deserve.

By the way, Monday the San Francisco Chronicle reported that legislators in California are trying to help the deported vets.

Last month, the Assembly unanimously approved AB386, which would direct the state to pay legal fees for certain deported veterans trying to return to the U.S. if they have a California connection-- such as having been stationed at a California base, or having children attending school in the state. It’s unknown how much this would cost the state. The bill is expected to clear the state Senate.

The state budget that Gov. Jerry Brown just signed includes $45 million for the legal defense of immigrants facing deportation. Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher of San Diego, who sponsored AB386, is pushing ahead with the legislation because it would explicitly state that deported veterans are eligible for that legal aid.

Immigrants who serve in the U.S. military are automatically eligible for citizenship, but to gain it they must complete the application process. Some of those who have been deported were legal permanent residents-- green card holders-- who say they mistakenly thought they became citizens when they enlisted and took their military oaths. Others didn’t follow through with the paperwork during active duty.

Many of the veterans at the support house, started by deported former Army paratrooper Hector Barajas-Varela in 2013, have pinned their hopes on the California bill and efforts by some members of Congress to help them. Otherwise, they don’t expect to return to California until they are dead-- when they will be allowed to be buried with military honors in a U.S. cemetery.

“These are people who made a compact with the federal government-- they were willing to give their life and fight for their country-- and in exchange our military service said, ‘You will be granted citizenship.’ And for whatever reason, that didn’t happen,” Gonzalez Fletcher said.

Opposition stems from organizations pushing for more stringent immigration laws, increased deportations and less legal immigration. Mark Krikorian heads the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for strict immigration enforcement and limits on legal immigration. His position: Deported veterans should not be let back in.

“They had a chance to become citizens on the fast track while in the service, and they chose not to take it, despite the military’s hectoring green card soldiers to get naturalized,” Krikorian said. “They’re grown-ups and need to deal with the consequences of their actions.”

Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates for limited immigration, pointed out that “California does not have a legal defense fund for other veterans who find themselves in legal difficulties.”

Immigration authorities do not track how many veterans the federal government deports each year. But in the past two decades since the immigration laws changed, the American Civil Liberties Union estimates about 3,000 veterans have been deported.

The ACLU is working with some of the deportees, combing through their cases looking for legal recourse. Veterans may be eligible to expunge their records, reclassify their crime under current laws, appeal their deportation or apply for citizenship or visas that would allow them to return.

At the Tijuana support house they call the Bunker, the veterans have created a community. It’s a small space, part storefront, part apartment, on a quiet dusty side street about 15 minutes from the border.

Barajas-Varela is the backbone of the operation. He’s one of three veterans who recently received a pardon from Brown, and he’s awaiting a federal decision on his citizenship application. He’s also tuned in to the fate of the California bill.

“When you are deported, no one cares about you,” he said. “For this legislation to be introduced is huge.”

L.A. Doesn't Allow Slavery-- Indentured Servants, Though... An Entirely Different Matter

I woke up this morning and my e-mail box was filled with messages about this report, Rigged by Brett Murphy for USA Today. I had missed it when it ran a few days ago but. My correspondents were insistent it is a must-read. And it is. It’s worth reading in full— though probably not on a full stomach. Murphy started off with the story of an immigrant trucker, Samuel Talavera Jr., virtually a modern day American slave. Or does being paid make you not a slave… even if the pay is 67 cents a week? One driver told Murphy that “We are not human. We are machines for making money for these people.” Talavera’s truck, which he was leasing-to-buy from the company he worked for, broke down in October, 2013.

When Talavera could not afford repairs, the company fired him and seized the truck-- along with $78,000 he had paid towards owning it.

Talavera was a modern-day indentured servant. And there are hundreds, likely thousands more, still on the road, hauling containers for trucking companies that move goods for America’s most beloved retailers, from Costco to Target to Home Depot.

These port truckers-- many of them poor immigrants who speak little English-- are responsible for moving almost half of the nation’s container imports out of Los Angeles’ ports. They don't deliver goods to stores. Instead they drive them short distances to warehouses and rail yards, one small step on their journey to a store near you.

A yearlong investigation by the USA Today Network found that port trucking companies in southern California have spent the past decade forcing drivers to finance their own trucks by taking on debt they could not afford. Companies then used that debt as leverage to extract forced labor and trap drivers in jobs that left them destitute.

If a driver quit, the company seized his truck and kept everything he had paid towards owning it.

If drivers missed payments, or if they got sick or became too exhausted to go on, their companies fired them and kept everything. Then they turned around and leased the trucks to someone else.

Drivers who manage to hang on to their jobs sometimes end up owing money to their employers— essentially working for free. Reporters identified seven different companies that have told their employees they owe money at week’s end.

The USA Today Network pieced together accounts from more than 300 drivers, listened to hundreds of hours of sworn labor dispute testimony and reviewed contracts that have never been seen by the public.

Using the contracts, submitted as evidence in labor complaints, and shipping manifests, reporters matched the trucking companies with the most labor violations to dozens of retail brands, including Target, Hewlett-Packard, Home Depot, Hasbro, J.Crew, UPS, Goodyear, Costco, Ralph Lauren and more.

Among the findings:

• Trucking companies force drivers to work against their will-- up to 20 hours a day-- by threatening to take their trucks and keep the money they paid toward buying them. Bosses create a culture of fear by firing drivers, suspending them without pay or reassigning them the lowest-paying routes.
• To keep drivers working, managers at a few companies have physically barred them from going home. More than once, Marvin Figueroa returned from a full day’s work to find the gate to the parking lot locked and a manager ordering drivers back to work. “That was how they forced me to continue working,” he testified in a 2015 labor case. Truckers at two other companies have made similar claims.
• Employers charge not just for truck leases but for a host of other expenses, including hundreds of dollars a month for insurance and diesel fuel. Some charge truckers a parking fee to use the company lot. One company, Fargo Trucking, charged $2 per week for the office toilet paper and other supplies.
• Drivers at many companies say they had no choice but to break federal safety laws that limit truckers to 11 hours on the road each day. Drivers at Pacific 9 Transportation testified that their managers dispatched truckers up to 20 hours a day, then wouldn’t pay them until drivers falsified inspection reports that track hours. Hundreds of California port truckers have gotten into accidents, leading to more than 20 fatalities from 2013 to 2015, according to the USA Today Network's analysis of federal crash and port trade data.
• Many drivers thought they were paying into their truck like a mortgage. Instead, when they lost their job, they discovered they also lost their truck, along with everything they’d paid toward it. Eddy Gonzalez took seven days off to care for his dying mother and then bury her. When he came back, his company fired him and kept the truck. For two years, Ho Lee was charged more than $1,600 a month for a truck lease. When he got ill and missed a week of work, he lost the truck and everything he’d paid.
• Retailers could refuse to allow companies with labor violations to truck their goods. Instead they’ve let shipping and logistics contractors hire the lowest bidder, while lobbying on behalf of trucking companies in Sacramento and Washington D.C. Walmart, Target and dozens of other Fortune 500 companies have paid lobbyists up to $12.6 million to fight bills that would have held companies liable or given drivers a minimum wage and other protections that most U.S. workers already enjoy.

This isn’t a case of a few bad trucking companies accused of mistreating a handful of workers.

Since 2010, at least 1,150 port truck drivers have filed claims in civil court or with the California Department of Industrial Relations’ enforcement arm, known as the labor commission.

Judges have sided with drivers in more than 97% of the cases heard, ruling time after time that port truckers in California can’t legally be classified as independent contractors. Instead, they are employees who, by law, must be paid minimum wage and can’t be charged for the equipment they use at work.

The rulings stop there. They do not address specific allegations of abuse by drivers, including whether trucking companies physically barred them from leaving work or ordered them to work past federal fatigue limits.

But allegations like those have been made in sworn testimony in hundreds of the cases, virtually all of which ended with trucking companies ordered to repay drivers for truck expenses and lost wages. The USA Today Network found that at least 140 trucking companies have been accused by at least one driver of shorting them of fair pay or using threats to squeeze them to work longer hours.

Prominent civil rights leader Julian Bond once called California port truckers the new black tenant farmers of the post-Civil War South. Sharecroppers from that era rented farmland to make their living and regularly fell into debt to their landlords. Widespread predatory practices made it nearly impossible for the farmers to climb out.

Through lease contracts, California’s port truckers face the same kinds of challenges in ways that experts say rarely happen in the U.S. today.

“I don’t know of anything even remotely like this,” said Stanford Law School Professor William Gould, former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board and one of the nation’s top labor experts.

“You’re working to get yourself out of the debt. You just don’t see anything like that.”

…Some company owners said their lease-to-own programs were a favor to truckers who might otherwise have been out of work. And there are drivers who make it through the contract to own their trucks, something that’s grown more common with time and a rebounding economy. Drivers who can't make a living aren't working hard enough, many company executives say.

“Our owner very generously went out and purchased a fleet of clean trucks,” said Marc Koenig, a vice president at Performance Team, which has lost cases to 21 drivers at the California labor commission. “That’s what really frustrated our owner. He really reached out and helped these guys.”

…California’s port truckers make it possible for the Walmarts and Amazons of the world to function. Even so, most of the two dozen retail companies contacted by the USA Today Network declined to comment, some saying they had never heard of the rash of labor violations at their primary ports of entry.

Only Goodyear said it took immediate action. Spokesperson Keith Price said in a statement that the tire giant dropped Pacific 9 in 2015, “within two weeks” of California labor commission decisions in favor of dozens of drivers.

The few others that issued statements said it was not their responsibility to police the shipping industry. Retailers don't directly hire the truckers who move their goods at the pier. They generally hire large shipping or logistics firms that line up trucking companies through a maze of subcontractors.

…For decades, short-haul truckers at the nation’s ports relied on cheap clunkers to move goods to nearby warehouses and rail yards.

With little up-front investment, drivers-- most of them independent contractors who owned their own trucks-- could make a decent living squeezing the last miles from dilapidated big rigs that weren’t suited for the open road.

In October 2008, that changed dramatically in southern California, home of the nation’s busiest ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach. State officials, fed up with deadly diesel fumes from 16,000 outdated trucks, ordered the entire fleet replaced with new, cleaner rigs.

Suddenly, this obscure but critical collection of trucking companies faced a $2.5 billion crossroads unlike anything experienced at other U.S. ports.

Instead of digging into their own pockets to undo the environmental mess they helped create, the companies found a way to push the cost onto individual drivers, who are paid by the number and kinds of containers they move, not by the hour.

There are 800 companies regularly operating at the LA ports. Almost all of them turned to some form of a lease-to-own model, some without thinking through the consequences, said industry consultant and lobbyist Alex Cherin.

“Flying by the seat of their pants and making it up as they went along,” he said of the scramble to find trucks for drivers. “Ultimately what they were trying to do was survive in a business with very thin margins.”

Truckers at dozens of companies describe the same basic scene. They were handed a lease-to-own contract by their employer and given a choice: Sign immediately or be fired. Many drivers who spoke little English said managers gave them no time to seek legal advice or even an interpreter to read the contract.

It was "take it or leave it," according to Fidel Vasquez, a driver for Total Transportation who said he couldn’t read the contract because it was in English.

Jose Juan Rodriguez owned his own truck and drove primarily for Morgan Southern, where two dozen drivers have filed claims for back pay at the California labor commission and civil court. Like many drivers, Rodriguez said he didn’t understand what he was signing, but felt he had no choice.

His wife has stage three breast cancer and his adult son has severe brain damage requiring frequent doctor visits.

“Where do I sign?” Rodriguez recalled asking right away. “The only thing I had to worry about is work, because I have a family.”

The contracts work like sub-leases. Knowing drivers could not qualify for their own loans or leases, trucking companies arranged to finance their fleets. Then they had drivers sign up for individual trucks.

Drivers gave their old trucks-- many of which they owned outright-- to their company as a down payment. And just like that they were up to $100,000 in debt to their own employer. The same guys would have had a tough time qualifying for a Hyundai days earlier.

As far back as August 2008, a trucking finance firm warned Port of Long Beach board members that 40% of drivers were likely to default on truck leases. But no one stopped the deals, which place almost all of the financial risk onto the workers.

Drivers' names were not on the truck titles. And many contracts effectively barred drivers from using their truck to work for other companies.

The companies also retained the power to decide how much work to give their drivers. They decide who gets the easiest and most lucrative routes-- and who gets to work at all.

That leaves drivers in constant fear of upsetting managers, who can fire them for any reason, or simply stop sending them business, a process some call “starving” them out of the truck.

On a five-year lease, drivers could pay in for four years and 11 months. If they got sick, fell behind on the lease or were fired in the last month, they could lose everything--as if they had never paid a dime.

“The truck was never his,” one California labor commission hearing officer noted in a March, 2014 ruling. “And he has nothing to show for all the time and money he spent.”

…Drivers who signed up for leases watched their take-home pay plummet and often had no choice but to work longer hours.

After emigrating from Nicaragua in 1992, Samuel Talavera Jr. drove a truck at the Los Angeles harbor and made an honest living. Since 9/11, all truckers working at ports of entry must be legal residents.

Talavera bought his wife, Reyna, a house and took his daughters to Disneyland.

But everything changed in late 2010, when he went into the QTS warehouse and his boss told him he needed to trade in his truck and sign a lease-purchase contract.

For the next four years, he worked mind-numbing hours to pay the bills.

To save commuting time, he slept in his truck at work. To avoid bathroom breaks, he kept an empty two-liter bottle by his side. He became a ghost to his family.

Still, he had to drain his savings to survive.

A stack of weekly paychecks he keeps in a drawer at home shows his worst weeks. He grossed $1,970 on June 3, 2011, but it all went back to QTS. After the lease and other truck expenses, he took home $33.

On February 10, 2012, he took home $112 after expenses.

The next week, he made 67 cents.

Reyna got two office cleaning jobs and a third taking care of the elderly to try to make ends meet. Even so, when her father died, she couldn’t afford to fly home for the funeral.

Talavera was working so much, she said. “We didn’t understand why there was hardly any money left over.”

Through interviews and court records, reporters catalogued more than 120 drivers who say they regularly worked past exhaustion, 12 to 20 hours straight behind the wheel.

Federal law prohibits commercial truckers from driving more than 11 hours at a time, and they can’t work at all after 14 hours, until they have had 10 hours of rest. Government studies show that for every hour past 11 that someone drives, the chances of crashing increase exponentially.

Many drivers feel they have no choice but to take that risk.

On bad weeks-- when Flores hits traffic or gets assigned a low-paying delivery-- he says he takes home $300 or less for 100 hours of work. That translates into $3 an hour, less than a third of what he could make washing dishes at California’s minimum wage.

Drivers could quit and find new work. But many, like Flores, say they’ve stayed on hoping things would improve. Then they realized if they quit, they would lose thousands paid toward their truck. “They’re captive,” Teamsters’ international vice president Fred Potter said.

Truck payments can cut so deep into wages that drivers actually owe their employer come Friday.

“Working for free,” one driver called it in a court statement.

Paychecks read instead like weekly invoices: Faustino Denova, negative $9.64. Germen Merino, negative $92.50. Jose Covarrubias, negative $280.

For some truckers, the debt stacked up week after week, until they borrowed against their house or from friends, used their savings to pay it off or until their company fired them.

“The company didn't care whether I took a gallon of milk to my home or not,” one driver testified in a civil court case. “The company would take everything.”

Enough weeks like that put truckers into a hole they can’t escape.

Like many drivers, Talavera and his wife fell behind on their mortgage, and then stopped paying it altogether. They filed for bankruptcy to save their home.

In ways that happen in virtually no other workplace in America, port trucking companies in Southern California wield enormous power over their workers.

Through interviews and a review of sworn statements, the USA Today Network identified more than 100 drivers who reported threats and retaliation. Managers punish drivers most often for turning down the lowest-paying routes, missing work or refusing to work past federal hour limits.

At least 24 companies have fired drivers outright under those circumstances, according to interviews and a review of court, NLRB and California labor commission records. In each case, the driver lost his truck and what he’d paid into it.

Arcadio Amaya said he refused to work 15 hours straight one night at Pacgran Inc. and was fired the next day. He lost $26,400 he had paid toward a truck.

Armando Logamo, a former driver at RPM Harbor Services, said he saw other drivers bribing dispatchers for better-paying assignments, so he told his supervisor. The next week, Logamo was fired. He lost the truck, along with all the payments he had put into it.

“They fired me because I was one of the ones that was speaking up,” he said. “It was pretty devastating because I was with them for two plus years.”

Eddy Gonzalez once missed a day when he was called to court to testify as a witness. As punishment, he said his boss at Seacon Logix didn't let him work the next day.

Then, a few months later, he missed a week to bury his dead mother. When Gonzalez came back, he said, his boss cleaned out his truck and fired him on the spot while he pleaded to keep his job.

“He just took the keys and left,” Gonzalez testified in court.

On Monday, Nanette Barragan, a freshman congresswoman whose district isn’t far from L.A.’s port was with the Teamsters to stand with them in solidarity on this issue. This morning she told me that her cousin is a truck driver. “I know first hand how hard our truck drivers work to make ends meet. Some of them don't even make minimum wage; this is unjust. I stand with our working families who deserve a fair and just wage."

Kia Hamadanchy is running for the Orange County congressional seat held by absentee congresswoman and Trump/Ryan rubberstamp Mimi Walters. Moments ago told us that "What's happening to these truckers is absolutely unconscionable and should have no place in any industry in this country. Companies shouldn't be allowed to trap their workers in these kinds of arrangements and situations like these are a big part of why I'm running for Congress and what I'd fight for once I get there." And the other excellent progressive running for the CA-45 seat is Katie Porter, who had the same reaction as Kia. She told us that "This is another example of how crushing, exploitive debt reveberates through people's lives and makes it almost impossible for many families to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. You should be able to work in this country to get yourself out of debt, but our financial and legal system has created an almost permanent class of debtors. Its why in Congress, I'll work to end credit checks for hiring and end employment discrimination based off consumer financial history."

Bernie's Revolution Is Winning-- Let's Not Let It Be Derailed By Idiots

Jimmy Gomez

California elected 5 new freshmen this year— all Democrats replacing Democrats: Ro Khanna, who won a primary against Mike Honda, Jimmy Panetta, who took the seat Sam Farr retired from, Salud Carbajal, who took the seat Lois Capps retired from, Nanette Barragan, who took the seat Janice Hahn retired from and Lou Correa, who took the seat Loretta Sanchez gave top when she ran, unsuccessfully, for the Senate. Politically all the freshmen are pretty much like their predecessors. Lou Correa is, by far the most conservative, and like Sanchez, he’s part of the Blue Dog caucus. Hahn and Honda were members of the Progressive Caucus and so are Barragan and Khanna.

All of the California incumbents either endorsed Hillary or stayed neutral. None endorsed Bernie. The Berniecrat House candidates all lost in California: Bao Nguyen to the conservative Correa, Wendy Reed to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Yet it’s hard to deny that Bernie’s Revolution is now one of the more dominant forces— if not the most dominant— inside the Democratic Party. Bernie didn’t do much for the California candidates who backed him. But I was very heartened that he sent out a letter to raise money for Nanette Barragan in the general and helped her raise the money she needed to win.

It didn’t look good going into the home stretch. State Senator Isadore Hall, the corrupt establishment pick, was heavily favored to win. He had it in the bag. Nanette had been getting some help from Blue America, but not enough to cover the expenses for a viable field operation that she sensed would be her shot at winning. EMILY’s List was also helping Nanette but they only raise money that they can get rake-offs and kickbacks from— expensive and nearly useless TV ads, for example— but not field operations. But that’s where Bernie came in. Even though Nanette had backed Hillary during the primary, someone in Bernie’s political operation prevailed upon whoever had to be prevailed upon and they operated the way an effective party should operate— overlooking that the most progressive candidate (Nanette), who basically was campaigning on a Bernie-like platform, had backed his rival— and backed her against a corrupt conservative who serves the interests of tobacco lobbyists, Big Oil and anyone with an open checkbook.

Thanks, in part to the Bernie-financed field operation, Nanette stunned the entire California Democratic Party establishment and beat their candidate decisively. From a weak primary showing that saw Hall best her 40,200 (40.1%) to 22,031 (22%), she came roaring out of the general with a 93,124 (52.2%) to 85,289 (47.8%) win. Hall was so shocked that he went to Washington and insisted he had won and tried voting on internal Democratic Party matters just like the other freshmen. The freshmen responded by electing Nanette one of the co-presidents of the freshman class and electing her regional Democratic whip. Hall disappeared.

All in, Hall had spent $1,900,360 and, thanks to Bernie, Nanette kept pace in the crucial final weeks. Her total spend was $1,815,773. The Cooperative of American Physicians spends money helping right-wing politicians. This year Hall was their second biggest investment ($100,122) after Republican Joe Heck ($299,578).

I’m bringing this up— the Bernie camp’s pragmatic attitude and decisive action— because I want to applaud it and I want too see more of this. If the BernieRevolution is going to take root and become viable within the Democratic Party, they’re going to have to win races with Berniecrats and forge alliances with like-minded progressives, like Nanette Barragan. It pains me when I see Bernie fans rallying behind second-rate candidates based solely on loyalty to Bernie. That’s a prescription for failure.

In the CA-34 race, Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez has exactly the kind of progressive attitude and record Bernie supporters expect from candidates looking for their support. But some of the Bernie backers in the district and around L.A. are bitter than Gomez had endorsed Hillary and have been smearing him as though he were Trump or Paul Ryan. That kind of political immaturity can only have one effect: crimping the revolution— and alienating the likely winner of the race instead of making an ally out of him.

The DCCC And Identity Politics

Steve Israel, flanked by Steve Horsford & John Ewing, 2 politicians whose careers he ruined

Last week we talked about the experience recent congressional candidate-- and long-time North Carolina Democratic political operative-- Thomas Mills had when trying to deal with an imperious DCCC. Much of what the DCCC is crying about what went wrong for them this year are the things Mills was running on-- emphasizing rural working class issues; infrastructure, schools, jobs... a Marshall Plan to "connect small towns and counties to economic centers with pavement and rail as well as with fiber and cell towers." DCCC response: not interested. Yesterday Mario Solis-Marich reiterated his own experience trying to solicit help from the DCCC for a Latina candidate in defeating a crackpot Orange County Republican extremist, Bob Dornan. He wrote that the DCCC was dismissive and told him Latinos don't vote; go away. He did go away-- and his candidate beat Dornan while the DCCC sat watching, jaws agape, stunned. Solis-Marich's point, though, was that that is standard DCCC operating procedure and that they never learn-- not even when they have a Latino as the head of the committee! His story, he wrote, "is one that is experienced over and over again by consultants from African American and Latino communities every congressional election campaign cycle."

The current insular state of the DCCC (aka “the building”) should be no surprise to anyone. The nature of any insular organization is to become more so. The one thing that may come as a surprise to those mainstream political consultants who have suddenly found themselves outside the ever tightening DCCC circle this cycle is that it can get worse. The out-in-the-cold consultants only need ask their Latino and African American counterparts if they want an indication of how chilly it can get outside of 433 Capitol St.

Latino and African American Democratic consultants have had the now derided outsider experience for as long as any of us can remember. Just two years ago an independent group, Power Pac, conducted an analysis on the spending patterns at the DCCC and found that the organization that champions affirmative action at the policy level in Congress falls below the standards of vendor diversity met by most big box retailers. Progressives in DC don’t need to fly to the Silicon Valley to find a corporate culture that just can’t seem to find diverse partnerships. They can walk to one from any Capitol Hill office.

The DCCC has continually rejected offers from minority consultants to work with them and innovate the messages and manner they use to reach African American and Latino communities. While the internal excuses are that the vendors fall below the standards of those in their current stable, the committee has done little to nothing to develop minority consultants they are willing to work with.

The organization also suffers from real systemic problems in the bidding process that stymie diversity and are not in line with its own mission. One example is that the bidding process used by the national organization does not consider state-by-state political and economic differences. This lack of adaptability has created a situation where vendors from states with more progressive minimum wage policies are forced to compete without any special consideration against vendors from states with conservative minimum wage policies. The outcome is to penalize vendors who pay better wages to their employees, which is contrary to the basic philosophy of the Democratic party itself.

There is no no doubt that the DCCC must do better. Currently more and more Latinos are choosing to register as voters with no party preference in states where a serious investment of political and real capital could create a path to congressional relevancy by Democrats. This is not a short-term game. It is a mid-term play that if not taken can lead to all Democrats being left out in the cold.

Sinema-- terrible

If you're a regular reader here, you already know that we're not fans of identity politics. We hate everything about what EMILY's List, for example, has turned into but there's little doubt in my mind that if candidates were supported based on the quality of their ideas and strength of their character, at least half the members of Congress would be women-- maybe much more. As for the racial component, the DCCC didn't involve itself in the open seat races in CA-44 or CA-46 this year, CA-46, ironically, being the seat Solis-Marich's story was based on. One of the best candidates elected to Congress from anywhere in the country was a small-town mayor who took on Exxon-Mobil when they tried drilling off her city's beaches and she beat them. That was Nanette Barragan and her opponent was one of the bought-and-sold Exxon state legislators. Nanette's a woman and Nanette's a Latina and I'm sure there were people who voted for her because of those qualities. But it's her character, her vision and her experience that saw her peers elect her first freshman class co-president and then regional Democratic caucus whip for Southen California. Down the road in CA-46, Lou Correa is also Hispanic, but he's too busy on K Street trying to line up a flow of the kinds of bribes he got when he was in Sacramento to be worried about being part of a team to stand up for progressive values the way Nanette is. Correa, who immediately joined the Blue Dogs and New Dems and who is likely to quickly distinguish himself as the worst Democrat in Congress-- as he managed to be in Sacramento when he served in the legislature-- is what happens when identity politics goes awry.

Congress-- and the Democratic Party-- are filled with garbage politicians: men, women, white, black, Hispanic, gay, straight. In fact-- and this is literal-- among Dems, the very best voting record in Congress is held by a gay Democrat, Mark Pocan (98.95) and the very worst one is also held by a gay Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema (36.63).

Solis-Marich is right that the DCCC has been dismissive of the legitimate aspirations of Latino and African American politicians, especially, when notorious racist slime bag Steve Israel was running the show. Now that he's finally gone has he taken his rule of thumb that blacks can't run in white-majority districts with him? Let's hope so and let's hope we see the DCCC backing the best candidates, not the ones based on the identity politics that voters are sick and tired of.

The Democrats' Super-Majorities In Sacramento-- Basically Rendered Meaningless By Corrupt ConservaDems

Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez

Yesterday, Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, who represents a huge swath of hipster and Hispanic Los Angeles (Silverlake, Echo Park, Boyle Heights, Eagle Rock, Highland Park, Montecito Heights, Cypress Park, Chinatown, East L.A.) yielded to an animated draft movement by progressives in his district to run for the congressional seat Xavier Becerra is giving up to become California Attorney General. There is tremendous fear that charter school shill Sarah Hernandez, backed by the usual array of anti-union, anti-education fanatics and, of course, EMILY's List, will be able to sneak her into Congress. Last month, Jimmy was reelected to the Assembly with a nice healthy 86.4% of the vote.

The Assembly... the Democrats just regained a super-majority-- and there's a Democratic governor. So Jimmy and and the Democratic Party would be able to get a lot accomplished, right? (The state Senate also regained a super-majority.) But... not right. The state government can't do much-- and that's because lobbyists have so much sway in Sacramento. How is that even possible? The misnamed "Moderate Caucus"-- corrupt right wing Democrats, the Republican wing of the party always looking to get it's collective palm greased-- work with the Republicans to stop anything and everything that smacks of a progressive vision for governance. Celebrate that Democrats have a super-majority in each house but remember that the anti-union charter school thugs, for example, just elected more garbage Democrats-on-the-take (cash pouring in from robber barons like Gap co-founder Doris F. Fisher, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Carrie W. Penner, the granddaughter of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, developer Eli Broad and former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg) like Tom Grayson from Contra Costa and Solano counties and, worst of all, Laura Friedman in Glendale and Los Feliz. Friedman was just elected in my own district and she's basically a pro-Choice Republican masquerading as a Democrat with TONS of money from the bad guys allowing her to absolutely swamp the district in deceitful advertising about her progressive opponent.

Back to the problem of the conservatives disguising themselves as Democrats and getting elected to the legislature. Dan Walters explained for Sacramento Bee readers why the super-majorities the Democrats just won mean little in practical terms.

In fact, it could result in more real clout by business, education reformers and other interests that do battle in the Capitol with liberal groups such as unions, consumer advocates, personal injury attorneys and environmentalists-- and more frustration for Gov. Jerry Brown’s legacy war on carbon emissions.

As Democrats were capturing enough Republican-held seats to reestablish the supermajorities they lost in 2014, the ranks of moderate Democrats were also increasing, thanks to big infusions of campaign cash from business and its new, albeit informal, partners in the education reform movement.

The Assembly’s “mod squad,” as it’s been dubbed, was instrumental during the 2015-16 session in blocking key elements of Brown’s multi-point assault on climate change, which he describes as an “existential threat.” He couldn’t win approval of a tight “low-carbon fuel” mandate or reauthorization of the “cap-and-trade” program of emission allowances.

One member of the loose moderate coalition, San Bernardino’s Cheryl Brown, was taken out by a union-backed campaign that dubbed her “Chevron Cheryl.”

However, the coalition’s ranks were bolstered by several victories in other Democrat vs. Democrat clashes. The education reform activists were particularly pleased by the defeat of Mae Torlakson, wife of state schools chief Tom Torlakson, who had strong backing from their foes in school unions.

Meanwhile, the Senate, which had supported Brown on climate change, may be developing a mod squad of its own with wins by business-backed Democrats such as Bill Dodd of Napa and Steven Bradford of Gardena.

In theory, the supermajorities could be used to impose new taxes or place constitutional amendments on the ballot. But they had almost no effect when Democrats had them during the 2013-14 session, and they may be even less likely to be employed in the 2017-18 session that begins next week.

Mod squad influence is rarely demonstrated in showdown votes on specific bills. Rather, legislation that fails because of their presence is usually placed on the shelf without votes after legislative leaders count noses and come up short.

The 17-year, 90.4 percent record of the California Chamber of Commerce in defeating bills it labels “job killers” is a testament to the clandestine nature of the perennial war between business interests and liberal groups.

Typically, the chamber pins its epithet on a few dozen major bills and only one or two of them make it through and are signed into law, but decisive votes on the vanquished measures are rare.

Thus, mod squad influence will not be apparent from official voting records, only in the final tally of what makes it into law and what doesn’t.

Eloise Reyes

Progressive champion Eloise Reyes defeated Chevron Cheryl Brown in San Bernardino (54-45%) and that's one very bright spot. This week Eloise was the very first freshman to introduce a bill in the Assembly. Another bright spot for California progressives is that the single most corrupt conservaDem in Sacramento, Isadore Hall-- yes, even more corrupt than Chevron Cheryl-- left the state Senate to run for Congress and, although heavily favored and backed by the entire disgustingly corrupt Democratic Party establishment (which pretends to oppose the conservaDems), was defeated by progressive underdog Nanette Barragan in the L.A. South Bay area. Her district, CA-44, stretches from San Pedro up through Wilmington, Carson, Rancho Dominguez, North Long Beach, Compton, Lynwood, Watts and South Gate and her colleagues were so impressed with her strength as a fighter that last week she was elected co-president of the new congressional freshman class, basically taking over for Ted Lieu in that spot.

Meanwhile, one of the worst former corrupt Sacramento conservaDems, Lou Correa, was-- like Hall-- heavily backed by California's utterly vile Democratic Party establishment and he managed to beat a devoted progressive for Loretta Sanchez's congressional seat in Orange County. He immediately joined the Blue Dogs and New Dems and will be a reliable vote for much of the damage Paul Ryan plans on doing-- just as he voted with the GOP consistently in Sacramento. Many say that now that ultra-reactionary Blue Dogs Gwen Graham (FL) and Brad Ashford (NE) have been driven from Congress, Lou Correa will quickly supplant Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) as the worst Democrat in the House. Do you think that's too bold a statement? See if this changes your mind at all. The problem with electing these garbage fake Dems, like Laura Friedman, to legislatures is that, aside from doing irreparable damage, it puts them in position to build power and move up the political ladder. Don't we have enough problems with Republicans without allowing the same sort of monsters to take over the Democratic Party? Democrats need more members of the working class in elected position; here's a suggestion:

Tomorrow's Notable California Congressional Races-- Some Democrats Aren't Worth Voting For-- And Some Are Fantastic

Tomorrow's the big day here in California. Let me remind you, that all of our endorsements for the 17 statewide propositions are here. There are no Republicans worth voting for anywhere in the state-- not for any office. In the U.S. Senate race, Kamala Harris is a better bet than Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez and in the congressional races, the Democrats I would never consider voting for are corrupt New Dem Ami Bera (who should be in prison instead of his poor fall-guy father), Blue Dog Jim Costa, New Dem Ro Khanna, coked-up New Dem Pete Aguilar, New Dem Isadore Hall, Blue Dog Lou Correa, and New Dem Scott Peters. Blue America has endorsed Ted Lieu, Doug Applegate, Bao Nguyen, Mike Honda, Nanette Barragán, and, of course, Barbara Lee. The rest of the Democrats range from excellent to... well get a clothespin and remember they're not as bad as Correa, Bera, Costa or Hall. It's also worth noting that there are half a dozen Dem vs Dem congressional races in the Greater Los Angeles area tomorrow:

• CA-29- Tony Cardenas vs Richard Alarcon
• CA-32- Grace Napolitano vs Roger Hernandez
• CA-34- Xavier Becerra vs Adrienne Edwards
• CA-37- Karen Bass vs Chris Wiggins
• CA-44- Nanette Barragán vs Isadore Hall
• CA-46- Bao Nguyen vs Lou Correa

And in CA-40 (East L.A., Downey, Paramount, Vernon, Bell, Cudahy, Commerce, Maywood) progressive Democrat Lucille Royball-Allard is opposed by an Independent, Roman Gonzales, who won 27% in the primary. He's likely to earn a smaller percentage than that tomorrow. But in these bizarre races with no Republicans, two are especially important: CA-44 (South Gate, Watts, Lynwood, Willowbrook, Compton, Carson, Rancho Dominguez, North Long Beach and San Pedro) and CA-46 (Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, and Garden Grove, easily the bluest congressional district in Orange County). What makes these two races so interesting is that there is a progressive pitted against a notoriously corrupt reactionary in each.

Yesterday when the L.A. Times reiterated their endorsements, they only picked ONE of the two dozen congressional districts in the L.A. area to highlight. That's how stark the difference and important the race is between Nanette Barragán and Sacramento's most corrupt legislator, sold-out conservative Democrat Isadore Hall, already recruited by the Wall Street-owned New Dems. Of course, the entire corrupted Democratic Party establishment has sided with Hall. He is, in every way, one of them. "Barragán," wrote the L.A. Times editors, "has strong environmental credentials. State Sen. Isadore Hall’s environmental record is dismal." They neglected to mention that his sleazy political career has been funded by Big Oil and Gas, tobacco, gambling and every rot-gut issue oriented lobbyist who is generally just welcomed aboard by the worst and most pay-for-play of the Republicans.

Nanette would be a great candidate even if she wasn't running against someone as reprehensible as Hall. Same goes for Garden Grove Mayor Bao Nguyen, whose opponent, Lou Correa, is, incredibly, even worse than Hall! If he wins-- and nearly a million dollars in right-wing SuperPAC money has flooded into his race-- he will surely be California's worst and most corrupt member of Congress. Congratulations, in advance, Orange County! Correa is the poster child for the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Naturally, he's been endorsed by both the Blue Dogs and the New Dems.



Correa is a realtor who took advantage of the mortgage crisis to build up an empire of rental properties all over Orange County-- particularly Anaheim and Santa Ana-- and one of the sleaziest realtor lobbyist groups, the National Association of Realtors Congressional Fund, spent $535,000 on his campaign so far. trying to make sure they would have an ally against consumers and homeowners inside the House Democratic caucus. But corporate special interests is a huge part of the Correa brand, another reason he fits in so well with the New Dems and Blue Dogs.

In a majority Latino district, Correa isn't just keeping it quiet that the joined the New Dems and Blue Dogs, but also that he voted against SB60, which would have made drivers licenses available for all qualified Californians regardless of immigration status. His vote was a complete betrayal of the Hispanic population. Although he's on record of having voted against it, when confronted with the vote he just lies and claims he voted for it. No wonder the Blue Dogs and New Dems love this guy!

Nor is that the only time he voted with the Republicans against working families-- far from it. Although Correa claims when he campaigns that he's committed to affordable higher education, that sure isn't what his record in Sacramento shows. When Assembly Speaker John Perez proposed AB 1500 and 1501, the Middle Class Scholarship Act, to provide scholarships covering 60% of fees and tuition at all California State colleges and universities for families with household incomes of under $150,000, Correa crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP again. Perez took the unusual step of going on the record and singling out Correa for killing the bill "because he wanted a $300 million (tax) carve out [for out-of state corporations including his campaign contributor International Paper]. "Today was an opportunity for the State Senate to join the Assembly in approving tax fairness for California businesses and college opportunity for middle class families. Unfortunately, even though most Senate Democrats supported the Middle Class Scholarship Act, we could not reach agreement with Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) or Senate Republicans that would achieve the two-thirds vote necessary... It is disturbing that Senator Correa and so many Republicans would refuse to stand up for the middle class and instead continue to support a tax giveaway that favors out-of-state companies over our own." In a disturbing pattern that defines Correa's life, he pocketed campaign contributions from International Paper-- which vehemently opposed the bill-- 10 days before he voted against AB 1500, and more loot three weeks after the disgraceful vote.

If killing the Middle Class Scholarship Act wasn't bad enough, Correa also helped kill SB 935 which was an attempt by Democrats in the legislature to raise the minimum wage in 2014. Although 63 of his fellow Democrats were co-sponsors of the bill, he claimed he voted with the Republicans against it because it was too long and he didn't know what it meant. It's almost as though he was already practicing to be a New Dem or Blue Dog!

He also worked with the GOP to restrict women's access to family planning and abortion services and to push the NRA's agenda. Planned Parenthood gave him a big fat ZERO rating and labeled him anti-Choice, the only Senate Democrat who didn't receive a 100% rating in 2009. The DCCC likes this guy; can he really be anti-Choice? You tell me-- this is is record on women's reproductive health in the state legislature:

• voted to prohibit state funding of family planning service providers
• voted to limit state funding for abortion services
• voted to ban ban abortion procedures that he disagrees with (and, no, he's not a doctor)
• voted to require parental consent before a minor can access abortion care
• voted to force women to look at biased and unscientific information before they can access abortion care

This is how patriarchal Republicans vote on Choice issues, not how Democrats vote. Although it certainly works in real well with the Blue Dogs and the rest of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Ditto on his cozy relationship with the gun nuts in general and the NRA in particular. He's actively supported loopholes to make sure assault-style military weapons would wind up in California neighborhoods. Again, Correa's sick record is not what Orange County Democrats and independents (nor even Republicans) want to protect society from gun massacres.

• voted against banning high capacity ammunition magazines and conversion kits (AB 48)
• voted against making it illegal to knowingly store loaded firearms that are accessible to minors (AB 231)
• voted against extending the waiting period for gun purchases when the background check reveals potential criminal and/or mental health history requiring further investigation to determine eligibility to purchase weapons (AB 500)
• voted against requiring registration of homemade guns and assault rifles, AKA “Ghost Guns" (SB 808)
• voted against restrictions on ownership of Assault Weapons and .50 Caliber Browning Machine Guns (AB 170)
• Correa opposes license requirements for purchase of guns, despite overwhelming public support, even among gun owners and voted against requiring a valid Firearm Safety Certificate in order to purchase a firearm (AB 683)

I bet you could guess he's also an environmental disaster, right? You'd be guessing right. California's League of Conservation Voters says he has the worst environmental record of any Democratic elected official in the state. He always sides with special interests to protect corporate polluters, consistently failed to protect the state's water sources from lead and contamination, and voted against ensuring Californians have a right to clean, safe and affordable water. Even though he joined corrupt Republicans to vote against SB 685, the Human Right to Water Act, in 2012, the bill passed, establishing a right to safe, non-toxic and affordable water for human consumption. But Correa voted to hide the source of vended drinking water, whether that water was from a public or private source, and the county from which the water came. AB 301 would have required water sellers to disclose this information: Lou Correa voted to keep such information hidden from the public. Large corporations have been bottling California's public water supply for years. This water is bottled and sold back to the public at an extreme profit. At the same time, the cost of water to the public is rising, and penalties being imposed for overuse. Swiss based Nestle Company has been bottling millions of gallons a year from San Bernardino's forests under a permit that expired over 25 years ago-- a permit with an annual costs of $525.00. Nestle bottles over 700 million gallons of water a year to sell back to the public at a staggering profit. As the public was ordered to cut back on water during the drought, with significant penalties at risk, corporations like Nestle were bottling California's water to sell back to them.

In 2009, the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) scored Correa's environmental voting record at 29%, 53 points below average Senate Democrat average. Correa had the lowest environmental rating of any Democrat. The following year they gave him a 30%, 61 points lower than the average Senate Democrat and the lowest rating of any Sacramento Dem. And the following year... same thing-- a 29% rating, 57 points lower than the average Senate Democrat and the lowest of any Dem in the state. The guy is a catastrophe and it's just repulsive that, for the sake of expediency, the Democratic establishment has embraced this garbage candidate who always, always, always puts corporate profits, tax breaks, and special interests over the needs of his constituents, while collecting special interest and PAC money for his next campaign. Is that the California Democratic Party today? It's certainly what Nancy Pelosi's DCCC has turned into. Steny Hoyer gave him the biggest contribution of any of the Democratic candidates of this cycle, $20,000 so far.

The weight of the Democratic Party Establishment is behind both Correa and Hall. If you live in California and you oppose corruption and conservatives, you should ask yourself why.

Meanwhile, one especially odious, brand new and little-known right-wing SuperPAC, Cooperative of American Physicians, which has spent most of it's money helping right-wing Republicans Joe Heck (R-NV), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Jeff Denham (R-CA), and Paul Cook (R-CA), has also come to the aid of corrupt conservative California Democrats Pete Aguilar ($22,438), Jim Costa ($31,627), Lou Correa ($35,000) and, worst of all, Isadore Hall ($100,122). Another right-wing SuperPAC created by Big Oil, the misleadingly named California Progress Coalition, has spent $271,411 smearing Nanette and another $63,842 trying to make Hall sound like he's a Democrat.

UPDATE: Can The Dems Win Super-Majorities In Sacramento?

No one disputes that we're going to see a blue wave in California. Democrats are counting on it giving them super-majorities in the Assembly and possible the state Senate that were lost in 2014. Ironically, in San Bernardino, Eloise Reyes beating a corrupt conservative like Cheryl Brown, ostensibly a Democrat but fully owned and operated by whichever lobbyists write the biggest checks, is the first step. And it looks good. If early voting trends are indicative, Eloise is likely to end Brown's miserable career tonight. Beyond that the Democrats need to pick up two red seats to triumph in the Assembly. Also in San Bernardino, Democrat Abigail Medino looks to beat Republican Assemblyman Marc Steinorth (Rancho Cucamonga). Two Dems who went down in 2014, Al Muratsuchi (Torrance) and Sharon Quirk-Silva (Fullerton) are back for re-matches with David Hadley (Manhattan Beach) and Young Kim (Fullerton).

The Senate looks tougher but the Democrats' best shots would be Ling Ling Chang (R-Diamond Bar) losing to Josh Newman) and Scott Wilk (R-Santa Clarita) losing to Jonathan Ervin. Either race would take a massive Latino turnout indicative of a Hillary landslide.

You Know "California" Is A Spanish Word, Right?

Democrats have labored for years and years and years trying to get California Hispanics registered to vote in greater numbers. Want to know why? Simple-- there are 8 Republican-held congressional districts in the Golden State with immense numbers of unregistered Latinos-- over a third of the potential voters. Like these:

• CA-21 David Valadao (72.1% Latino)
• CA-22 Devin Nunes (45.9% Latino)
• CA-10 Jeff Denham (40.0% Latino)
• CA-25 Steve Knight (37.9%)
• CA-08 Paul Cook (35.9% Latino)
• CA-23 Kevin McCarthy (35.4% Latino)
• CA-39 Ed Royce (34.6% Latino/28.1% Asian)
• CA-42 Ken Calvert (33.2% Latino)z

And then along came Trumpy. Since he came down the escalator at Trump Towers last year to call Latinos rapists, 1,196,060 California Latinos have newly or re-registered. That's 26.2% all Latino registrants in California. Despite his typically uninformed and ignorant claims he would win California-- he's not even polling 30% in the state and is likely to do worse than any Republican, worse even than Alf Landon when he ran against FDR-- the real problem for the California Republican Party is not Trump, who they wish didn't exist. It's the down-ballot races in districts like the ones above. Frantically, they got Paul Ryan to do an emergency three-day, 14-stop swing through the state to to help shore up highly vulnerable incumbents, particularly Jeff Denham, David Valadao and Steve Knight, who could all be goners in less than 2 weeks. And Sacramento Bee political reporter, Sean Cockerham, begins his report not in the Central Valley but by talking about how Darrell Issa, the richest person in Congress, may well be defeated-- and his district is only about a quarter Latino! White suburbanites, apparently, don't like Trump's anti-Hispanic racism either.

The release of video footage of Trump bragging in explicit terms about groping women has only escalated problems that began with his statements calling Mexican immigrants “rapists.” Nearly 1 in 5 people in Issa’s changing district who’ve registered to vote since California’s June primary are Latino, and there’s no shortage of resentment of Issa’s description of Trump as the “obvious choice” for president.

“The more the word is getting out that Issa is endorsing Trump, it doesn’t bode well for Issa in the Latino community,” said Bill de la Fuente, who works on Latino business development in Issa’s home city of Vista. 
...California Republicans running for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives are struggling in the age of Trump, with their challenge intensified by the growing numbers of registered Latino voters. This is Issa’s first tough race since being elected to Congress 16 years ago, and he is not alone.

Rep. Steve Knight, from Lancaster in northern Los Angeles County, also is fighting for his political life as he scrambles to distance himself from Trump, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sees an opening in the Central Valley congressional district around Modesto, now represented by Republican Rep. Jeff Denham of Turlock, a Trump supporter. The committee is spending nearly $700,000 to unseat Denham, whose district now has a population that is more than 40 percent Latino.

The 11-year-old footage of Trump bragging about groping women, followed by women accusing him of groping, has increased the pressure on California Republicans to the breaking point. Knight – after spending the year refusing to say whether he supports Trump or not-- announced after the video’s release that he now “cannot support either candidate for president.”

Denham and Issa condemned Trump’s remarks but neither withdrew support for his presidential campaign. 
Trump is toxic for any Republican who is running for office, and all of them are worried about what he means for their races, said Kurt Bardella, a former spokesman for Issa who now runs his own consulting firm.

Republican candidates are terrified that Republican voters won’t show up at the polls because they don’t want to vote for either Trump or Hillary Clinton, he said. That’s especially a danger in California, where the U.S. Senate race is between two Democrats, so there’s nothing at the top of the ticket to draw Republicans out to vote other than the presidential race.

“In some of these districts if (Republican) turnout is 5 percent less than it was four years ago then that’s the ballgame,” Bardella said.


...Denham and Knight... represent congressional districts where registered Democrats now outnumber Republicans. Knight, the most vulnerable Republican member of Congress in California, long tried to avoid the Trump issue by refusing to say whether he would vote for the Republican presidential nominee before the video release forced his hand.

Nick Chavez, a third-generation Mexican-American who works in construction in Palmdale, in the high desert an hour’s drive north of Los Angeles, said he hadn’t been impressed with Knight’s waffling over Trump.

“Either put up or shut up,” said Chavez, a registered Republican who is leaning toward voting next month for Knight’s Democratic challenger, Bryan Caforio.

Knight’s district runs from Santa Clarita, a low-key bedroom community of Los Angeles where the surrounding area doubles for the Old West in films and television (scenes from HBO’s “Westworld” were recently filmed there), north along the highway to the working class Antelope Valley cities of Palmdale and Lancaster.

About a quarter of the registered voters in the district are Latino and their registration numbers are growing as the election nears, according to Political Data Inc., a California firm that tracks election data for campaigns.

Caforio’s campaign is on the offensive against Knight for not renouncing Trump until after the groping video was leaked 31 days before the election, with Caforio saying in an interview that Trump is “running the most racist, misogynistic, bigoted campaign in the history of a presidential candidate.”

Knight’s response in an interview to questions about his long silence on Trump was that he’s never before endorsed a presidential candidate and “in this campaign it’s served me well.”


On paper at least, Denham’s fertile San Joaquin Valley district appears even more primed for a Democratic takeover.

The agricultural heart of California, where vast orchards and groves of almonds, walnuts, grapes, oranges and other crops stretch toward the Sierra Nevada mountains, the area is heavily Latino, and Denham and Rep. David Valadao represent districts that are increasingly Democratic.

Al Moncada, a longtime Latino Republican activist from Manteca, said he’d switched his voter registration to independent because of Trump and was a supporter of Denham’s Democratic opponent, Michael Eggman.

Denham “aligned himself with a man that represents everything Republicans have fought against all these years, discrimination and all these things,” Moncada said. “Trump has taken the Republican Party back to slavery years. It is sad, but that’s the way Latinos and African-Americans and other minorities feel.”


...“At this point there’s nothing beneficial that a Republican candidate can say about Trump,” said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

Schnur said it was clear that Trump was dragging down Republicans running for Congress in California, especially after the bombshell release of the video where the Republican presidential nominee brags about groping women.

“That doesn’t mean every Republican congressional candidate will lose, but it means there is a significant downside to having Trump at the top of the ticket regardless of how you handle it,” Schnur said.

Polling is showing that 6 California counties that went for Romney in 2012 are going for Hillary this cycle-- Orange, Riverside, Fresno, Nevada, Butte, and Trinity. Even outside the Trump universe, this upsurge in Latino registration could be a boon for other candidates as well. In L.A.'s South Bay, CA-44, Janice Hahn is trying for higher office and she and the rest of the corrupt California Democratic Establishment decided to give her seat in the heavily Latino district (70.5%) to one of their fellow corruptionists, in fact Sacramento's single most corrupt politician, Isadore Hall, a Big Oil-owned conservaDem (endorsed by the New Dems). No one expected any kind of a battle in a district that normally does whatever the Party Politburo tells it to do. But Hahn and Hall and their cronies were stunned when progressive reformer Nanette Barragán put up more than a token battle and can well win this Dem vs Dem-- progressive vs conservative-- battle royale, where the burgeoning Latino registered voters could well make all the difference in the world. This week La Opinión, California's biggest Spanish language newspaper, ran the ultimate inspirational feature on why Barragán should be the Representative from the 44th. The L.A. Times agreed and also endorsed her and early vote-by-mail ballots have been 33% Latino in the district, the highest, by far, in history, pointing to a possible upset for Hahn and the corrupt party establishment bosses and a win for a progressive Latina in a solid blue district that went for Obama over Romney 85-14%.