Good News And Less Good News From New Mexico Primaries Tuesday

Mostly better than Republicans: Pelosi, Schumer, Lujan

Three predictions: 1- Teresa Leger Fernandez, who just won the Democratic primary in New Mexico's 3rd district (the seat Ben Ray Luján is leaving for his Senate run, will be sworn into Congress next January, if we still have a functioning democracy. The PVI is D+8 and in 2016 Trump was crushed there (36.7% of the vote). 2- Leger Fernandez will have the comfy congressmember job for decades. 3- Leger Fernandez will never accomplish anything in Congress.

Last August, in looking at the NM-03 primary, I wrote that I had high hopes that Valerie Plame, who has certainly served the country well, might be the progressive I was looking for but... I still wasn't sure enough to recommend her endorsement by Blue America. She told me she backed the Green New Deal, banning the sale of assault weapons and Medicare-for-All, adding the caveat "for those who want it." I hoped all cycle she would see the light and that we could endorse her. Never happened. She lost to Leger Fernandez, despite outraising her significantly:

My friends in the state suggested Teresa Leger Fernandez was the progressive in the race but everything about her website screamed an identity politics, DCCC-EMILY's List nothing-candidate. There was no way to get in touch with her on the site-- usually a good indication a candidate is a corporate shill. There was no issues page, which is 100% pure DCCC-EMILY's List. And the website is just all about her, or her idea of how she wanted to present herself to voters. It was all "me! me! me!" and nothing about what she was supposedly offering the people in the district. Her intro video didn't say a damn thing about how she's likely to behave in Congress. Will she be like the 2 other New Mexico Reps, Deb Haaland, whose voting record is an "A" or like Xochitl Torres Small, whose voting record is an "F." I noted that "It makes a difference."

In their cheer-leadery election wrap-up on Wednesday, The Intercept found other results to cheer about in New Mexico.

In New Mexico, an all-women slate of progressives challenged five recalcitrant incumbents under the banner of a coalition dubbed “No Corporate Democrats.” Four of the five women ousted long-serving members of the state Senate who had stood in the way of the progressive agenda for years in this deep blue state. Another allied progressive, who wasn’t officially part of the coalition, unseated an anti-choice Democrat. The defeated incumbents include state Senate leadership figures.

Eric Griego, New Mexico state director for the Working Families Party, which had backed the progressives, said their victories are the “last gasp” of the moderate, corporate wing of the party on a state and local level. He noted that these victories build on the gains progressives made in the 2018 wave elections, when one of the longest-serving members of the state House of Representatives, conservative Democrat Debbie Rodella, was defeated by Susan Herrera.

“With them gone, we think this is going to open up a lot of really, really monumental legislation that the state has needed for generations,” Griego said. The progressives’ priorities include fully funding early childhood programs, releasing the state’s dependence on oil and gas, and repealing an arcane law that criminalizes abortion, he added. “The other really big one is potentially expanding the social safety net whether it’s healthcare or childhood education.”

An unprecedented number of absentee ballots has led to delays, so the votes are still being counted, but the Working Families Party declared victory in all five races Wednesday afternoon.

Siah Correa Hemphill, an educator and school psychologist, won overwhelmingly in District 28, unseating state Sen. Gabe Ramos. In District 38, Carrie Hamblen, a pioneer in New Mexico’s fight for LGBTQ rights and marriage equality, is locked in a tight race against Senate President Pro Tempore Mary Kay Papen. Ballots are still being counted in the extremely close race, with Hamblen leading by about 139 votes as of Wednesday afternoon.

In District 35, Neomi Martinez-Parra has a nearly 10 percentage point lead over state Sen. John Arthur Smith, who has been in office since 1989 and serves as the head of the Senate Finance Committee. Pam Cordova, a retired educator, also appears to be on track to victory, leading state Sen. Clemente Sanchez by over 1,000 votes, as of Wednesday morning. Cordova was backed by local labor groups and unions, EMILY’s List, and U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich.

Noreen Kelly, a Navajo elder and environmental activist who ran with No Corporate Democrats, is the only candidate on the slate who lost. She jumped in late in the race, formally launching in March, and struggled to get her campaign off the ground.

Leo Jaramillo, chair of the Rio Arriba County Commission, wasn’t officially on the No Corporate Democrat slate, but his victory is being celebrated by the Working Families Party and other allied progressive groups. Jaramillo defeated five-term incumbent state Sen. Richard Martinez, an anti-choice lawmaker who was also one of four Democrats to vote against New Mexico’s “red-flag” gun law, in District 5. The embattled state senator had faced calls to step down after being convicted and jailed for drunk driving last year. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham asked Martinez to resign from his seat, saying he was “obligated to reflect on his actions and how best to reconcile them with his position as a public servant in the state Legislature, in particular his status as chairman of an influential committee,” but no personal reckoning had taken place.

Oil and gas companies, which wield enormous influence over the state’s budget and politicians, pumped at least $1 million into New Mexico’s state Senate races, including Chevron Oil spending $700,000 in support of the incumbents. But some of the challengers, like Jaramillo and Correa Hemphill, had garnered broader coalitions of support across the progressive wing of the party and with top Democrats like Lujan Grisham and Heinrich. To help boost the candidates, the WFP joined other groups in making tens of thousands of calls, sending out mail, and investing in radio and texting.

The No Corporate Democrats coalition was modeled after New York’s No IDC coalition, which in 2018 unseated conservative Democrats who were allied with Republicans, known as the Independent Democratic Conference. Progressives in New Mexico were tasked with the challenge of branding incumbents that work with Republicans, Griego said. Despite pushing candidates in a few risky, tough races, the coalition, which included reproductive rights groups, environmental groups, and the nonprofit organization OLÉ, pulled it off.

Good! Meanwhile New Mexico will send a less progressive/more establishment delegation to DC next year--just one progressive (Haaland) out of the 5, which includes a very conservative Blue Dog and, mostly, careerist politicians who don't do much-- neither good nor bad-- for their communities. Replacing the most progressive member, Senator Tom Udall, will be a big zero-- Ben Ray, a complete waste of a Senate seat-- and exactly what Schumer demanded. I suppose that's the best most Americans can hope for from the elected leaders.

Conservatives Like Trump And Biden Don't Back The Idea Of Free College, But New Mexico Is Moving Ahead Anyway

Maggie Toulouse Oliver is New Mexico's Secretary of State and currently the progressive candidate for the U.S. Senate seat Tom Udall is retiring from. This morning she told me, in a statement, that "As a single mom who is still paying off student loans-- and has taken on additional loans to pay for my oldest son's college education-- I know how much this innovative plan will help New Mexicans. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is leading where Washington has failed. I look forward to bringing the lived experience of a single mom who worked her way through college to the U.S. Senate. And I look forward to taking bold New Mexico ideas, like universal free college tuition, with me to D.C. so that we can improve the lives of all American families."

You know how states are supposed to be the petri dish of innovative government? Yesterday, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced that the state will pay the tuition for all students at New Mexico's 29 public two-year and four-year colleges. Bernie's platform in action! (Needless to say, Republicans and Status Quo Joe oppose these kinds of plans.) New Mexico will use revenues from oil production to pay for the program. Simon Romero and Dana Goldstein broke the story yesterday for the NY Times, emphasizing the universality of the plan and dubbing it "one of the boldest state-led efforts to expand access to higher education. The move comes," they wrote, "as many American families grapple with the rising cost of higher education and as discussions about free public college gain momentum in state legislatures and on the presidential debate stage. Nearly half of the states, including New York, Oregon and Tennessee, have guaranteed free two- or four-year public college to some students. But the New Mexico proposal goes further, promising four years of tuition even to students whose families can afford to pay the sticker price."

“I think we’re at a watershed moment,” said Caitlin Zaloom, a cultural anthropologist at New York University who has researched the impact of college costs on families. “It used to be that a high school degree could allow a young adult to enter into the middle class. We are no longer in that situation. We don’t ask people to pay for fifth grade and we also should not ask people to pay for sophomore year.”

By some measures, the tuition initiative will be the most ambitious in a growing national movement. College costs and student debt have emerged as major issues in the Democratic presidential primary, with two of the leading contenders for the nomination-- Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren-- promising to make all public colleges and universities free. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has a more limited proposal to eliminate community college tuition.

So far, states, not the federal government, have led the way-- sometimes out of a hope that a more educated work force would attract businesses and improve local economies. As of 2018, 17 states had programs promising free college to at least some students, according to an analysis by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most of those programs cover tuition only at two-year institutions.

...Like the New York program, the New Mexico plan would cover only tuition, not living expenses, and the funds would be available only after a student drew from existing state aid programs and from federal grants.

But the New Mexico proposal does go further than New York’s Excelsior Scholarship in two regards: It is available to all students, regardless of family income, and it includes funds for adults looking to return to school at community colleges.

“This program is an absolute game changer for New Mexico,” Governor Lujan Grisham said in a statement. “In the long run, we’ll see improved economic growth, improved outcomes for New Mexican workers and families and parents.”

Officials contend that New Mexico would benefit most from a universal approach to tuition assistance. The state’s median household income is $46,744, compared with a national median of $60,336. Most college students in the state also come from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds; almost 65 percent of New Mexico undergraduates are among the nation’s neediest students, according to the state’s higher education department.

The new program in New Mexico would be open to recent graduates of high schools or high school equivalency programs in the state, and students must maintain a 2.5 grade point average. In contrast to other states, like Georgia, that have curbed access to public colleges by unauthorized immigrants, New Mexico would open the tuition program to all residents, regardless of immigration status.

Carmen Lopez-Wilson, the deputy secretary of New Mexico’s Higher Education Department, said the program would benefit about 55,000 students a year at an annual cost of $25 million to $35 million. She added that the state was trying to bolster its higher education system, which endured spending cuts of more than 30 percent per student from 2008 to 2018.

“We’re giving money directly to students,” Ms. Lopez-Wilson said. “This is the best way to begin rebuilding the infrastructure of higher education in New Mexico.”

Ms. Lopez-Wilson said the relatively low cost of the program reflected low tuition costs in the state, with many students already receiving forms of assistance. Other states that have less extensive tuition assistance proposals are spending far more.

A year of tuition at the state’s flagship campus, the University of New Mexico, costs $7,556 for state residents. At the state’s largest community college, Central New Mexico Community College, tuition costs are generally less than $3,000 per year.

New Mexico already has some of the lowest debt rates for graduates of four-year colleges. In the class of 2017, they owed $21,237 on average, compared with a national average of $28,650, according to the Institute for College Access & Success.

...[B]oth chambers in New Mexico are controlled by Democrats, and while fiscal conservatives still have considerable sway in the state, legislators have already shown willingness recently to increase spending on public education. State and federal spending on early childhood programs, including prekindergarten, is climbing to $546 million this year in New Mexico, a $135 million increase from the previous year.

In a departure from the belt-tightening after the 2008 financial crisis, New Mexico also gave raises to public-school teachers and the faculty and staff of the University of New Mexico this year.

The free-tuition plan points to the shifting political landscape in New Mexico, traditionally a swing state that was up for grabs by both major parties. It is now emerging as a bastion of Democratic power in the West, standing in contrast to other large oil-producing states controlled by Republicans. At the same time, an oil boom in the Permian Basin shared by New Mexico and Texas is lifting the state’s revenues.

In some ways, the burst of interest in free public college is a return to the nation’s educational past. As recently as the 1970s, some public university systems remained largely tuition-free.

As a bigger and more diverse group of undergraduates entered college in recent decades, costs rose, and policymakers began to promote the idea of a degree as less of a public benefit than a private asset akin to a mortgage, according to Professor Zaloom, of N.Y.U. Many states raised tuition, and students became more reliant on grants and loans.

“We should be looking at the examples from our own history,” Professor Zaloom said. Free college educations from the University of California, the City University of New York and other public systems, she added, have been “some of the most successful engines of mobility in this country.”

When we first endorsed Eva Putzova, one state over in Arizona, she told us she supports "fully publicly funded education from pre-K through college for all. Education is the great equalizer and foundation of any prosperous, civil society. Today, college students are $1.3 trillion in debt. This is a huge burden on them as they start their lives after school and enter the workforce.  We managed to provide a debt-free education to veterans after World War II, and to the baby boom generation as well. In 1969, in Arizona, annual tuition was $272 and one could earn that working in a minimum wage job for 1 month. Today's students in Arizona have to work for more than 6.5 months to pay for their year in college. Imagine what we could achieve if we approached education in a spirit of solidarity: today's graduates working and paying taxes which would allow a new generation to benefit from the same education they once received. Just like healthcare, education should be a right, not a privilege."

This is also of great concern to Milwaukie, Oregon mayor Mark Gamba, the current progressive challenger for the Oregon congressional seat held by conservative Blue Dog Kurt Schrader. It's one of the issues he's running on. "Our current system of secondary education here in America largely sets young people up for failure while theoretically setting them up for success," he told me last night. "Young adults coming out of college with massive debt can’t afford to take a job that pays poorly even though it might be the right stepping stone to the career they’ve always dreamed of, instead they are required to find a job that pays them well enough to keep up with their debt payment. It didn’t used to be this way, it shouldn’t be this way and it isn’t this way in many of the countries we compete with on the world market. Rather than a system of education designed to enrich bankers, we should have a system of education designed to have the most well-educated population in the world. That’s why I’m a strong proponent for free public college education for anyone carrying a decent GPA out of high school."

Jennifer Christie, the progressive candidate in an open Indiana congressional district in the suburbs north of Indianapolis, got back from walking the UAW picket line last night and wrote me that she "worked very hard to pay for my own college education and to pay off every single penny of my student debt. I had sleepless nights working 2nd and 3rd shifts in a nursing home to pay for my tuition while I was in school. I graduated with honors in both Chemistry and Biology... two degrees paid for mostly by me. I was the first to graduate from college in my family. So why do I support free college tuition? Because I know what a college degree did for me. Because we have tough problems to solve and education fosters innovation. Because it was so hard to fund it by myself. Because I don’t want my kids to have to do what I did. Because a simple tax on Wall Street speculation would pay for it. Because we bailed out Wall Street. Now it’s time for Wall Street to return the favor for my kids and yours. It will be the best investment they’ll ever make!"

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

On Monday, Putin's Fist Puppet took time off from spending our hard earned tax dollars cheating at one of his nearly bankrupt golf resort/massage parlors and took his traveling circus of hate to beautiful Albuquerque, New Mexico. There's nothing new to report except some whining on behalf of a "Supreme" Court "judge" who probably took his oath by placing his penis on the Bible. There was also the fact that the corporate media didn't broadcast the whole rambling, fact-challenged, two hour "Castro without a beard" thing on seemingly every channel like they did when they wanted to help get him elected in 2016. No doubt the fact that they didn't will contribute to his ever-growing hate for them. "Me! Me! The camera should be on me! 24 hours a day! This is MY show!

" The crowd? Same, of course. Same pathetic, brainwashed Red Hat=Hatred critical thinking-challenged Neo Nazi sympathizers who dream of a "Belsen For Brown People" and place their hopes in a freak who could not care less about them either.

Trump Sneaks Around California, Hiding From The Voters-- Like A Thief In The Night

I was supposed to have dinner with a friend at Nerano, a small, low-key, out-of-the-way restaurant in Beverley Hills tonight. But we cancelled the reservation and moved our destination to a Turkish restaurant, Kismet, on the East Side instead. Our goal wasn't about cuisine-- although Kismet is amazing, especially the marinated feta-- but to get as far away from the Trumpanzee Circus on the West Side. He was at a mystery dinner last night and a mystery breakfast today.

Southern California activists wanted to protest Trump's two appearances in Beverly Hills. But they couldn't. The locations are top secret. No one knows who the hosts are or where the receptions are. The voters will be kept away. It was the same kind of thing, according to Wall Street Journal reporters Rebecca Ballhaus and Chad Day yesterday. "Three years ago," they wrote, "an uproar among company employees forced the chief executive of Intel Corp. at the time to cancel an event for candidate Donald Trump at his Atherton, Calif., home hours after the plan became public. On Tuesday, the president is set to return to the Bay Area for the first time since his election-- and no one will say who is hosting him. Campaign aides and advisers cited security and privacy concerns and noted violence that arose from protests during Mr. Trump’s previous trips to the area as they declined through Monday evening to disclose the host of the fundraiser the president will attend. Donors invited to the event—whose tickets cost up to $100,000 per couple—weren’t told in advance where the fundraiser is or who is hosting it. Instead, they were told to arrive at a parking place in Palo Alto, from which they will be transported to the event."

It's hilarious to see Trump sneaking around California from mansion to mansion to collect money from the super-rich in person, while avoiding actual voters. Trump is certainly the most hated and reviled occupant of the White House in modern history-- more hated than Nixon. California isn't exactly Trump territory. In 2016 Hillary beat Bernie in the Democratic primary, but even in losing, Bernie won more votes than Trump did in his win. Bernie took 1,502,043 votes to Trump's 1,174,829. In Silicon Valley's Santa Clara County, Bernie had almost double the number of votes Trump did-- 70,468 to 35,568. And in Los Angeles, it was shocking:

• Bernie- 434,656
• Trumpanzee- 179,130

In November, Hillary slaughtered Trump statewide and in both counties where he's sniffing around for campaign cash. Statewide she beat him 7,362,490 (61.6%) to 3,916,209 (32.8%). That's right, Trump didn't even get a third of California's votes. And it was far worse in Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties. In Santa Clara, Hillary beat him 73.8% to 20.9% and in Los Angeles County it was 71.4% to 23.4%. (Trump got less than 10% in San Francisco.)

Third-rate celebrities (and former celebrities) who support Trump include Jon Voight, Andy Garcia, Heather Locklear, Dean Cain, Laura Prepon, Angie Harmon, Vince Vaughn, Adam Sandler, Joe Pesci, Kurt Russell, Chuck Norris, James Woods, Charlie Sheen, Margaret Hamilton, George Hamilton, Jessica Simpson, Owen Wilson, Jaclyn Smith, Cheryl Ladd, Sela Ward, Kevin Sorbo, Patricia Heaton, Bruce Willis, Kanye West, Tom Selleck, Clint Eastwood, Stacey Dash, Roseanne Barr, Hulk Hogan, Tila Tequila, Fran Drescher, Sylvester Stallone, Gene Simmons, John Ratzenberger, Robert Davi, Kirstie Alley, Kelsey Grammar, Jesse James, Gary Busey, Wayne Newton, Lou Ferrigno and gay porn star and former Republican congressional candidate Antonio Sabato, Jr.

Monday night, the Trumpanzee Hate Circus was in New Mexico, where Trump got distracted by a fly and... just generally made a fool of himself by condescending to Hispanics.

The president's pitch to Hispanic voters seemed to silo them off from the rest of the electorate, including the rally crowd ("We love our Hispanics"). It featured an assertion that they had a greater understanding of the source of the drug problem than other Americans. And it included a section in which Trump wondered how CNN contributor Steve Cortes could be Hispanic even though, the president said, he appeared to be of Northern European descent.

“He happens to be Hispanic, but I never quite figured it out because he looks more like a WASP than I do,” Trump said of Cortes, who was in the audience.

From the stage, he asked Cortes: "Who do you like more, the country or Hispanics?” Cortes appeared to mouth “country,” to which Trump replied: “I don’t know. I may have to go for the Hispanics, to be honest with you. We got a lot of Hispanics.”

Trump later said Hispanics should support him and his efforts to build a border wall because they understand the roots of the drug problem better than other voters.

"And at the center of America's drug crisis, this is where the Hispanics know it better than anybody, people said, 'Oh, the Hispanics won't like a wall.' I said, 'I think they are going to love it,'" Trump said. "You know why? Because you understand it better than other people, but at the whole center of this crisis is the drugs that are pouring in, and you understand that when other people don't understand it."

“Nobody loves the Hispanics more,” Trump told the crowd. “We love our Hispanics, get out and vote.”

Red, white and green “Latinos for Trump” signs littered the crowd, with a directive to text “VAMOS” to the campaign number on the back. New Mexico’s population is nearly 50 percent Hispanic, according to the Census Bureau... Trump's disapproval rating among Hispanics stood at 79 percent in a Pew Research Center poll last month.

Trump Visits The Land Of Enchantment

Senate candidate Maggie Toulouse Oliver welcomes Trump to New Mexico

"Trump," wrote New Mexico Secretary of State and progressive Senate candidate Maggie Oliver to her supporters, "has brought his campaign of hate to New Mexico in the hopes that he can divide our state and turn it red. We were determined to send Trump a message that his bigotry and hate-fueled politics are not welcome in New Mexico... Trump is the antithesis of New Mexico values. He spreads hate, fear, and division wherever he goes. In New Mexico, we value our vibrant and diverse communities. We embrace our neighbors and our differences. We take care of each other."

New Mexico was a swing state in 2004 when George W. Bush was seeking reelection. It was an extremely close race and Bush beat Kerry there 376,930 (49.84) to 370,942 (49.05%). Since then Obama won with healthy margins both times he ran and even Hillary Clinton managed to win against Trump by about 8 points. The state has been trending blue. Both U.S. senators are Democrats, as are all 3 U.S. congressmembers. The state's PVI is D+3, significantly bluer than Colorado, Virginia, Michigan, Nevada and Minnesota. The governor is a Democrat as are all 5 other elected members of the executive branch, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state auditor and commissioner of public lands. The state Senate has 26 Democrats and 16 Republicans and the state House has 46 Democrats and 24 Republicans. 2018 was a big Democratic year in New Mexico. Aside from winning the last Republican House seat, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich was reelected in a 3-way race:

• Martin Heinrich (D)- 376,998 (54.1%)
• Mick Rich (R)- 212,813 (30.5%)
• Gary Johnson (L)- 107,201 (15.4%)

On the same day Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) was elected governor over Rep. Steve Pearce (R) 57.2% to 42.8%. Debra Haaland (D) was elected to replace Grisham with 59.1% and Xochitl Torres Small (D) flipped NM-02 with 50.9%.

That all said, Trump was in Rio Rancho (Sandoval County), north of Albuquerque, for one of his hate rallies yesterday. The county hasn't been especially friendly to Trump. In the 2016 primaries both Hillary and Bernie had significantly more votes than Trump did and in the general Hillary beat Trump 44.8% to 42.1%. Last year Sandoval County was bad news for the GOP. Heinrich beat Rich there 50.9% to 32.1%.Lujan-Grisham beat Pearce 55.1% to 44.9%. It performed as a D+18 county for Haaland and in his part of the county, as a D+16 for Ben Ray Lujan. Why was Trump there? Axios reported Sunday night that the Trump campaign is making a play for the state. They must be enchanted, although they say they basis is the large number of New Mexicans that attended a Trump hate fest in El Paso in February. Sunland Park, New Mexico is a suburb on El Paso and people in Las Cruces looking for a good time make the 45 minute drive down the 10 to El Paso. Both are in Doña Ana County. That and Otero County are in the El Paso media market. Otero is a solid red county and Doña Ana has plenty of backward Republicans in the rural southern parts of the county. There is nothing remarkable of New Mexicans being at an event in El Paso, although a Trump campaign official told Axios that "That was our first glimpse into the idea that there might be something happening."

Reality check: Demographers and pollsters tell Axios it's highly unlikely Trump can win New Mexico's 5 electoral votes.

• The state Latino population is overwhelmingly Democratic.
• Major New Mexico cities are booming and moving left politically, while Republican strongholds are losing their share of the population.
• Trump lost New Mexico in 2016, and his net approval rating has plummeted from +17 when he first took office to -13 as of July. The blue wave hit New Mexico hard in 2018.
• America First-- a prominent pro-Trump group-- told Axios it doesn't have plans at this point to poll in New Mexico.

Trump Spoke In New Mexico For 95 Minutes. How Many Lies Do You Think He Told?

Daniel Dale was counting... and so far he's identified over two dozen. Here are a few:

• He that the Green New Deal proposal would require people to have no more than "a single car," and would prohibit people from driving "more than 162 miles." The Green New Deal resolution does not include any restrictions on the number of cars people can own or how far they can drive.

• Trump repeated his bullshit that a "Google executive," someone who "worked at Google," reported that Google bias may have cost Trump up to 10 million votes in the 2016 election.

• He boasted that he was the one who got the Veterans Choice health care program passed, saying, "They've tried to get that for 45 years. They haven't been able to get it. But I'm good at getting things." The program was created in 2014 in a bill signed by Obama.

• He said of his USMCA trade agreement, "Unions love it." The agreement is generally opposed in its current form by major US unions, who have demanded changes to the text; the president of the AFL-CIO federation says it will be a "disaster for workers" if it is not amended.

• He said, "They wanted a wall in San Diego-- good mayor in San Diego, by the way. They wanted a wall." Another lie he repeats over and over, the way he learned to do by reading Nazi literature; even San Diego mayor Kevin Faulconer, a Republican, opposes the wall.

• Trump said, "We will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions. The Republicans will always do that." A whopper of a lie and a blatant attempt to mislead people stupid enough to pay any attention to him. Trump and Republicans, who have tried to pass bills that would have weakened protections for people with pre-existing conditions, are now trying to get the courts to declare Obamacare void, without a plan to replace those pre-existing protections if their lawsuit succeeds.

• He said North Carolina congressional candidate Dan Bishop, who won a special election last week, was down "17 points" before Trump got involved. He made it up. Bishop was up by a couple of points in some polls and down by a couple of polls in others. It was always close. Romney and Trup each won the gerrymandered district by 12 points. Bishop won by 2 points, Trump's toxicity lost him 10 points.

• He said the Mueller investigation cost "$40 million." The final total was $32 million, and the government is expected to recoup about $17 million from former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort as a result of Mueller's convictions.

• He said China is "eating the tariffs" he has imposed on imports of Chinese products. A bevy of economic studies has found that Americans are bearing the overwhelming majority of the tariff costs, and Americans make the actual tariff payments.

• He said his border wall is being built "fast." As of the end of August, zero additional miles had been built during Trump's presidency; 60 miles of replacement barriers had been built. (Trump has argued that these replacement projects should count as his wall.)

• He said the US has the "cleanest air that we've ever had in this country." By several measures, US air was cleaner under Obama than it's been under Trump. Three of the six types of pollutants identified by the Clean Air Act as toxic to human health were more prevalent in the air as of 2018 than they were before Trump took office, according to Environmental Protection Agency data. Additionally, there were more "unhealthy air days" for sensitive groups in 2018 than in 2016.

Maggie Toulouse Oliver versus The Machine, The Swamp, Schumer, The DC Stink

So far Blue America has only endorsed 3 candidates for the Senate in 2020, outstanding incumbent Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and two progressives in hot primary races against conservative Establishment shleps: Andrew Romanoff in Colorado and Maggie Toulouse Oliver in New Mexico, the current Secretary of State. Before Romanoff can get to incumbent Republican Cory Gardner he'll probably have to beat failed presidential candidate Frackenlooper. And before Maggie Oliver gets to whichever conservative loser the GOP spits out for the seat, she'll have to beat the DC Establishment candidate for the seat Ben Ray Luján.

Yesterday, Ryan Grim, reporting for The Intercept asked if New Mexico will go with the progressive or with the ex-head of the DCCC. "The party establishment," he wrote, "has already unified behind Ben Ray Luján, a New Mexico congressman, to fill the seat being vacated by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall, who is retiring. Luján-- who is assistant House speaker, a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last cycle-- was quickly endorsed by Pelosi after announcing his bid in April. In an unusual move, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, rather than letting the primary play out, endorsed him as well."

Leave it to Schumer and the DSCC to always pick the more corporate and more conservative candidate! And the one most easily controlled by party leadership. Their move should be enough of a reason to contribute to Maggie's campaign immediately. (Please do so by tapping on the 2020 Blue America Senate thermometer on the right.) Maggie Toulouse Oliver is too progressive for Schumer's taste and too independent-minded and New Mexico-focussed for the transpartisan corrupt DC Establishment. As Ryan reminded his readers, "As the chair of the DCCC, Luján oversaw the party’s effort to beat back progressive challengers in open primaries across the country. Now, he faces such a challenge himself."

On August 13, the Working Families Party, which has become an increasingly potent player in the state’s politics, endorsed Maggie Toulouse Oliver, joined later by the Action PAC (a project affiliated with The Intercept columnist Shaun King). Oliver, a 43-year-old single mom whose children were on Medicaid when they were younger, began her career with the League of Conservation Voters and was elected secretary of state in 2014. An outspoken progressive, she backs a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, wants to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency; as secretary of state, she enacted automatic voter registration and same-day registration.

The Lujáns, on the other hand, are a political dynasty in New Mexico and arrived in the region as Spanish colonial settlers long before it was part of the United States. Ben Ray’s father, Ben Luján, was speaker of the New Mexico House. Michelle Luján Grisham serves as the state’s governor, and her uncle, Manuel Luján Jr., was a Republican who served in the U.S. House and as George H.W. Bush’s interior secretary. Eugene Luján was chief justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The New Mexico race is the first serious attempt in 2020 by progressives to take the 2018 House primary playbook and port it over to a Senate campaign. For the DSCC to so quickly get behind Luján reflects a less secure party power structure, one that feels under siege in Washington from a rising progressive wing.

At a meeting on August 14 of major progressive groups in the state, Eric Griego of New Mexico WFP pushed for the movement to unify around Oliver, he said, but the groups-- representing unions, the environment, and reproductive rights-- were worried about taking on Luján and are so far staying out. “They’re looking at the bare-knuckle politics,” he told The Intercept. “Their heart is with Maggie, and everybody is scared shitless to get in the race.”

There's an asymmetry in how the parties approach primaries in relatively uncompetitive states. Republicans tend to fill open red Senate seats with true believers and ultraconservatives, as the party’s business wing and its activist base are largely aligned on major ideological questions. In the Democratic Party, the corporate donor base and party activists are at odds, with the former typically out-muscling the latter, which tilts the balance of power toward moderates in the Senate Democratic caucus.

Establishment Democrats often argue that they would prefer to elect more progressive candidates, but the demands of pragmatism, and the tilt of the electorate, require them to support centrist candidates with corporate backing. A 2018 academic study, however, cast significant doubt on that claim, offering evidence that those party leaders prefer centrist candidates but mask that preference in the language of pragmatism.

The tendencies on either side have had drastic implications, as Senate Republicans have moved to reshape the Senate into a vehicle for minority dominance, and Senate Democrats have largely attempted to hew to Senate norms. It took former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid some five years to do modest filibuster reform, as he worked to overcome objections from inside his caucus to changing Senate rules. At the first hint of opposition to Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly ended the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

One obstacle for progressives in blue states is that they often have to run, in primaries, against candidates who aren’t obviously objectionable to Democratic voters-- and have major backing from high-dollar donors. That combination is difficult to beat. Leading into the primary election between former New York Rep. Joe Crowley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, there was no upsurge in local or national opinion that there was something terribly wrong with Crowley. Sure, he was heavily backed by corporate donors, but he largely voted the right way on the House floor. Only in victory has Ocasio-Cortez been able to demonstrate the genuine difference between the two to a national audience.

Oliver faces the same challenge in New Mexico. “It’s not easy because he’s not somebody that people dislike. He’s not the enemy, but he’s not the best possible option,” said Heather Brewer, Oliver’s campaign manager. “There’s nothing wrong with Ben Ray Luján, but there’s something right about electing the first woman and a strong progressive from the blue state of New Mexico.”

And Luján has become even less wrong since running for Senate. After chairing the DCCC for three cycles and raising extraordinary sums of corporate money, he quickly raised some $200,000 of corporate PAC money for his Senate campaign. Yet after Oliver swore off corporate PAC money, Luján made the pledge too (though he has declined to return what he has already taken). Lujan also signed on to the Green New Deal, introduced by Ocasio-Cortez in February, after launching his campaign. Though he had never before supported former Rep. John Conyers’s Medicare for All legislation, in June, he finally co-sponsored the one written by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) which earned him Jayapal’s endorsement.

Still, he hasn’t moved left on everything. Though Luján is the highest-ranking Hispanic lawmaker in Congress, and has condemned Trump’s policy of separating families and caging children, he has not aimed his fire squarely at ICE. Oliver is more outspoken on the question and has called for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished, with its responsibilities distributed to other agencies that do not act as rogue secret police forces.

And while Oliver has been calling for the impeachment of Donald Trump, Luján has hewed to the Pelosi line that it’s premature to move forward. “On the books, he’s got a decent record; he’s not bad, we could do worse,” Griego said. “He’s a consummate inside player, and a really loyal soldier to Pelosi.”

New Mexico has become increasingly progressive in recent years and, as the GOP has faded as a political force, leftist activists have focused their energy on corporate Democrats. The biggest win so far came in 2018 against Debbie Rodella, a powerful state lawmaker who was a one-woman obstacle to progress. WFP recruited and backed an insurgent challenger, Susan Herrera, who stunned the state by ousting her in a state House primary. WFP and other progressive allies are again focused on a handful of corporate-backed Democrats at the state level in 2020, even as the groups aren’t united behind Oliver.

The race for Oliver could come down to whether she can win the backing of reproductive rights groups and win heavily among women, who not only lean Democratic but tend to be more active on behalf of candidates than men. Getting the backing of EMILY’s List is critical; the organization’s brand is so strong with female donors that if a candidate doesn’t have that endorsement, it’s hard for them to raise money. Call back when you have their endorsement, multiple candidates have been told repeatedly during their own runs.

EMILY’s List endorsed Oliver’s run for secretary of state, but backing her against Luján would require the group to challenge the Democratic power structure, of which EMILY’s List is a part. Still, EMILY’s List staying out of the race would also be politically difficult. Only 56 women have served in the Senate in the entire history of the upper chamber, with just 25 serving today. And Luján, as chair of the DCCC, angered pro-choice groups by arguing that opposition to reproductive rights should not be a litmus test for candidates (but quickly backtracked under fire).

The longer it takes for Oliver to win the backing, the harder it becomes to raise the kind of money she’ll need to compete against Luján. (EMILY stands for “Early Money Is Like Yeast.”) Luján has raised more than $1.6 million so far to Oliver’s roughly $200,000, a disparity that was flagged by the progressive groups this week in their argument for why they should stay neutral.

Brewer said she was hopeful the campaign would earn the support of EMILY’s List. “I would assume given they’re a strong organization that supports pro-choice women, that that is their only consideration in how they make decisions,” she said. “I couldn’t speak to how Washington insiders might be trying to manipulate that.” And, Brewer argued, New Mexico races are relatively inexpensive; Oliver will be able to get her message out statewide for just a few million dollars, which Brewer was confident they could comfortably raise.

Ben Ray, a coincidentally named spokesperson for EMILY’s List, said that no decision had been made. “Our endorsements are a rolling process,” he said. “We are always happy to see strong women leaders like Maggie get in races like this.” (Rolling is one way to describe it; while outside activists often perceive EMILY’s List as dragging its feet, its endorsement process is cumbersome and laborious, involving a choice council that is difficult to convene at one time.)

Oliver, meanwhile, is also hoping to lock down national progressive endorsements from groups like Justice Democrats, MoveOn, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, the local Indivisible, and more. That could make up for the lack of support from other mainline progressive groups afraid to take on the party establishment.

Sad about Pramila. I didn't know that.

As Grim implied, Luján is a follower-- never a leader, never an independent thinker. This campaign has been funny inasmuch as whatever Oliver does, Luján follows. He's always opposed Medicare-for-All but decided to back it because she did and because it polls well. He's always opposed the Green New Deal but decided to back it because she did and because it polls well. And now, he's suddenly backing impeachment, many months after most Democrats have-- and after he looked like a fool because Maggie did and he didn't... and voters were noticing. It's fine that Luján has decided to copy everything Maggie does. Maggie does good things. But what happens if he gets into the Senate and starts copying Schumer-- which is exactly what Schumer is counting on. That won't be nearly as good. New Mexico deserves an independent-minded Senator like Tom Udall, not some hack career politician.

NM-03 Could Be One Of The Most Important Battleground Districts For Progressives In 2020-- If There's A Progressive Running

As you can see from the map above, New Mexico has 3 congressional districts. NM-01 is basically Albuquerque (most of Bernalillo County) and its surroundings in much less populated Sandoval (blue), Torrance (red) and Santa Fe (red) counties. The PVI is D+7 and Obama won it with big margins both times he ran. Hillary didn't do nearly as well but still beat Trump convincingly-- 51.6% to 35.1%. Bernie won the primary in 2016 and didn't just beat Hillary but also beat Trump. In fact, Bernie beat all the Republicans combined. The congressional seat was open in 2018 and a stalwart progressive, Deb Haaland won the primary and then the general-- 59.1% to 36.3%.

NM-02 is most of the southern half of the state and it leans red. The PVI is R+6. Obama lost it narrowly both times and then Trump clobbered Hillary 50.1% to 39.9%. There are 19 counties or pieces of counties in the district. The biggest (by far) is Doña Ana (Las Cruces, north of El Paso)-- which is also the bluest-- and the only other county with much of a population is way up in the Albuquerque area, Valencia, which also swings blue. Other than that though, it's a pretty red district.The next 4 biggest counties are all overwhelmingly red: Otero, Chaves, Eddy and Lea. It was a super-close race in 2018-- the seat was open-- but a really bad Blue Dog, Xochitl Torres Small, narrowly beat Republican Yvette Herrell, 101,489 (50.9%) to 97,767 (49.1%), Torres Small is a disaster and her strategy is to vote like a Republican in the hope of luring Republican voters and while praying the Democratic base either doesn't notice or just figures that as terrible as she is, she'll be better than a Republican... even if just fractionally.

And that brings us to the bluest district in the state, NM-03 in the north. It includes Santa Fe, Rio Rancho, Clovis, Gallup, Los Alamos, Taos and Farmington and has a solid D+8 PVI. Obama kicked ass both time he ran-- first with 61.2% and then with 57.5%. But even when New Mexicans had to decide who was the lesser of two evils, Hillary beat Trump 51.8% to 36.7%. The district is around 40% Hispanic, 38% white and 17% Native American with a big Navajo population as well as Pueblos and Apaches.

The congressman since 2008 has been Ben Ray Luján, just a dull careerist and hereditary politician-- his dad, Ben Luján, was speaker of the state House-- with no strong beliefs and no backbone. He's running for the U.S. Senate, so leaving the NM-03 seat empty. In a strong blue district, this is a perfect opportunity to replace a waste-of-a-seat member with a strong progressive. But, for some reason, as far as I've been able to determine, there isn't one running. There are 10 Democrats running (an 11th, Rob Apodaca withdrew Thursday) and another 9 considering running. Yesterday an ex-Democrat, former Santa Fe County Commissioner Harry Montoya, filed FEC papers to run for the seat as well.

The dumb-narrative in the district is that the Democrats there are conservative so a progressive can't run. Oy, is that dumb! Does that mean the Democrats there don't want dental insurance included in Medicare? Does it mean they don't want to see the age for Medicare gradually lowered until it includes everyone? Does that mean they don't want to save the planet from Climate Change? Does it mean they oppose free public colleges? Does it mean they oppose raising the minimum wage to a living wage? Polling has consistently shown that the Democrats in NM-03 very much want all of those things-- and want them, strongly. It's why Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver is running on them and it's why Luján, who has consistently opposed every progressive proposal introduced into Congress, immediately started signing on as a co-sponsor to all of them as soon as Maggie's platform was released.

But the dumb-narrative persists, primarily because dumb-media and dumb-politicians repeat it over and over. It doesn't mean anything substantive but it's how nothing politicians like Luján keep getting elected and reelected. With so many candidates, it's going to be a tough nut to crack in terms of figuring out who's who and what they stand for. Remember this Chris Hayes suggestion? This district is the polar opposite-- all noise, no meat.

I had high hopes that Valerie Plame, who has certainly served the country well, might be the progressive I was looking for but... still not sure-- although, when I spoke to her yesterday, she told me she backs the Green New Deal, banning the sale of assault weapons and Medicare-for-All, adding the caveat "for those who want it." Most of my friends in the state have suggested Teresa Leger Fernandez is the progressive I'm looking for but everything about her website screams an identity politics, DCCC-EMILY's List nothing-candidate. There's no way to get in touch with her on the site-- usually a good indication a candidate is a corporate shill. There is no issues page, which is 100% pure DCCC-EMILY's List. And the website is just all about her. It's all "me! me! me!" and nothing about what she's offering the people in the district. She released this intro video this week. It doesn't say a damn thing about how she's likely to behave in Congress. Will she be like Deb Haaland, whose voting record is an "A" or like Xochitl Torres Small, whose voting record is an "F." It makes a difference.





UPDATE: Progressive

This guy Kyle Tisdel sounds good. He's seriously running on the Green New Deal and all the issues around it. I should talk with him.

Did Pelosi And The Rest Of The Fear-Based Democrats Screw Up Impeachment?

Quote of the week comes from Georgia U.S. Senate candidate Teresa Tomlinson, a progressive, a super-smart attorney and, until earlier in the year, the very successful mayor of Columbus:

It’s fear that cripples the Democratic Party. Fear of our policies, fear of who we are, and fear of the Republicans. Yes, fear is what has politically cost us in the last many election cycles.

One cannot lead if one is afraid. The thing about leadership is that people want their leaders to be brave. They care less about what you think on the issues than whether you have the moxie to fight for them and the strength of conviction to tell them what you really think.

Instead of doing her constitutionally-mandated duty of beginning the process of removing the criminal in the White House, Pelosi-- a victim of her own hype about how sharp and strategic she is-- has been playing political calculus and, in the process, may have blown the chances to impeach Trump.

Early yesterday morning, the Sun Sentinel broke the news that garden variety congressional Democrat Ted Deutch, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, has finally gotten around to backing impeachment. It was in an OpEd penned by Deutch himself, No More Debate. Impeachment Inquiry Is Underway. But have they waited too long to win the battle of TV ratings-- and public support? "Although Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony may not have been a summer blockbuster," wrote Deutch, "it confirmed the damning conclusions of his report. The investigation revealed substantial evidence that President Trump obstructed justice. And that the Special Counsel did not exonerate him."

Why it wasn't a summer blockbuster isn't addressed by Deutch. Everyone inside the Beltway was tuned in-- but not the national audience that would have been had it been "important enough" to be part of impeachment. If the Democrats didn't think it was impeachment material, why should people take time out of their busy days to watch this "inside baseball" stuff? That's where Pelosi (and Nadler) miscalculated. Did they blow the chance to turn public opinion decisively in favor of impeachment, the way the Nixon television impeachment hearings did?

The most recent Reuters poll (by Ipsos) has some important numbers to consider. Among registered voters, 59% say the country is heading in then long direction. (55% of independents agree.)

Among registered voters, Trump's job approval is 40%, with disapproval at 59%. (Among independents, it's 42% approve and 51% disapprove.)

People polled say the Mueller testimony didn't sway them much in terms of impeachment. "Among those [71%] who read, saw or heard about Mueller's testimony, 47% said it made no difference in their views about impeaching the president. The public hearings had opposing impacts based on partisanship: among Democrats, 48% said they are more likely to support the process of impeachment that could ultimately lead to Trump’s removal from office, 8% said they are less likely to support impeachment and 44% said they feel the same as they did prior to Mueller’s testimony. Whereas for Republicans, only 3% said they were more likely to support impeachment, 42% said they were less likely, and 54% were unchanged. Independents were split, with 26% saying they are more likely to support impeachment and 29% saying less likely. 45% of Independents said they feel the same as they did prior to Mueller’s testimony."

Even after the hearings in which Mueller explicitly said he did NOT exonerate Trump, 35% of voters believed the had exonerated Trump and just 41% were clear-minded enough to understand that he hadn't. And a new Quinnipiac poll shows that although 51% believe Trump is a racist and that 71% are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" that a foreign government may try to interfere in the 2020 elections, and that a 52% to 40% majority said that Trump did attempt to "derail or obstruct" the investigation into the 2016 election, 60% of registered voters said Congress should not begin impeachment proceedings against him. (61% of Democrats do support impeachment.) Now... back to Deutch: "Trump," he wrote, "claimed victory. He seems to think that Mueller’s performance wasn’t enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry. Sorry, Mr. President, the question is no longer whether the House should vote to proceed with a formal impeachment inquiry. The inquiry has already begun." But did Pelosi and her fear-driven caucus botch the process with their incremental approach to even this?

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole authority of impeachment. Officially launching an impeachment inquiry has never been a prerequisite to using that authority. The Judiciary Committee may refer articles of impeachment to the whole House for a vote at any time.

In the past, a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to consider impeachment was needed to grant the committee additional subpoena authority and financial resources. That was the official start of an impeachment inquiry.

But times have changed. In 2015, Republican leaders gave committee chairs broad subpoena powers-- powers that Chairman Nadler retains today.

No additional step is required. No magic words need to be uttered on the House floor. No vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry is necessary.

The Judiciary Committee officially started its investigation into the abuse of power by President Trump on March 4, 2019. The stated purpose was to consider all constitutional remedies for presidential misconduct, including impeachment. In every meaningful way, our investigation is an impeachment inquiry. The Judiciary Committee already has the power to refer articles of impeachment to the whole House.

The Trump Administration has taken unprecedented and unconstitutional actions to ignore congressional subpoenas and pressure witnesses not to appear. President Trump has turned the White House into a black box. The Justice Department fabricated a theory of blanket immunity and distorted claims of executive privilege. The Administration wants to silence the witnesses to the President’s obstruction.

But the American people deserve to hear from former White House Counsel Don McGahn, under oath, about when the President ordered him to fire Mueller. And from Corey Lewandowski about when he was asked to narrow the scope of the investigation to protect the President. And from former Attorney General Jeff Sessions about President Trump’s pressure campaign to take back control of the investigation.

If the suggestion that we are already in the midst of an impeachment inquiry sounds farfetched, look to last week’s court filings by the House counsel. To break the administration’s stonewalling, the House lawyers explained that the Constitution gives the House “a constitutional power of the utmost gravity-- recommendation of articles of impeachment.” Since Department of Justice policies won’t allow the prosecution of a sitting President, only the House of Representatives can ensure that the President is not above the law.

As we told the court, we already have the power. We don’t need a vote. We need President Trump to stop obstructing.

The committee has said repeatedly that impeachment is on the table. Legal experts, and now Robert Mueller himself, confirmed that the Special Counsel’s investigation was never capable of holding a sitting president accountable. Justice Department regulations ensured that was the case.

The remedies for presidential misconduct, including impeachment, are in Congress’s hands. Now that we have Special Counsel Mueller’s report and testimony, it is time for the witnesses of the President’s wrongdoing to appear before the committee as part of our ongoing investigation.

As Chairman Nadler noted in his opening statement last week, “We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.”

We don’t need to launch an impeachment inquiry. It has been under way since March.

Yesterday, Politico's whip list showed that over half the Democrats in the House (118 out of 235) now favor opening formal impeachment proceedings against Trump. The latest members to announce their support, besides Deutch, are Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY), Mike Levin (D-CA), Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA), Jason Crow (New Dem-CO) and Katherine Clark (D-MA), a member of Pelosi's leadership team.

Politico: "The lawmakers quietly working to organize support for Trump’s impeachment say there are two important figures to watch in the next few weeks. Assistant speaker Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), who is running for an open Senate seat against a primary opponent who has embraced impeachment proceedings, and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a civil rights icon who has questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s election but so far deferred to Pelosi on impeachment. Though there’s no indication he’s changing his tune, Luján’s support for impeachment proceedings could help unlock the backing of a slew of freshman Democrats who Luján helped elect in 2016, when he ran Democrats’ campaign arm, pro-impeachment lawmakers say. And Lewis’ support would carry significant sway with members of the Congressional Black Caucus who have remained on the fence so far. Lewis has repeatedly been asked for his opinion on impeachment proceedings but has repeatedly indicated that he’s deferring to Pelosi."

That primary opponent Politico referred to as the person Luján is running against and who has embraced beginning impeachment proceedings is New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a strong and dedicated progressive. She had forced the generally conservative Luján to flip flop on issue after issue. Because of her he now claims to support Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal, though he barely understands what either is. Yesterday, Oliver gave us a statement on Luján's hemming and hawing about impeachment. "For the good of our democracy," she wrote, "I am asking Congressman Lujan to use his leadership position and join my call for impeachment so that we can hold this president accountable and prevent any further abuses of power by the president. We must take action now to protect our democratic process by impeaching President Donald Trump. What’s more, we can hold this president accountable and still pass important legislation like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All."

Please consider contributing to Maggie's campaign for the New Mexico Senate seat by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Senate thermometer just above on the right. Not only will she make a better senator than Ben Ray Luján ever would, she'll actually make a great senator, one like Jeff Merkley, Mazie Hirono, Tammy Baldwin, Brian Schatz and, most of all, Tom Udall, the New Mexico progressive who is retiring now. It would be tragic to replace a progressive like Udall with a fear-based conservative like Luján.

#MuellerTimeWithMaggie

Maggie Toulouse Oliver is the first 2020 Senate candidate Blue America is endorsing-- other than the reelection effort for our old pal, Jeff Merkley (D-OR). First and foremost, Maggie, New Mexico's Secretary of State, is a progressive trailblazer-- something with good positions, good ideas and the courage and ability to move positions and ideas into policy and reality. Bonus: if she wins she will be the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from New Mexico. Her opponent is Nancy Pelosi puppet Ben Ray Luján, from a political family, a professional politician with neither a set of operative values nor any real point of view.

Maggie, like Jeff Merkley, would be another rare self-made member of the working class in the Senate, something a Senate-ful of multimillionaires desperately needs. As Bernalillo County Clerk and then Secretary of State, she’s helped clean up New Mexico's state government, hold dark-money special interests accountable, and oversee fair elections.

Luján has been running himself ragged trying to keep up with her as she campaigned on issues way too progressive for where he has been for his whole career in the House. On day one of her campaign she began talking about how deeply she backs the Green New Deal and Medicare-for-All. Poor Luján had no choice but to go along with the two popular programs, neither of which he had previously backed. She is also advocating opening an impeachment investigation of Trump, something Luján still can't quite bring himself to breaking with Pelosi over.

Today-- starting at 12:30PM (MT)-- and tomorrow, Maggie is live-streaming herself reading the entire Mueller Report on Facebook and Instagram (#MuellerTimeWithMaggie) in preparation for Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. "I’ve read the Mueller Report, and the facts are clear," she told New Mexico voters: "There is more than enough evidence for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings." (While Mueller is testifying, Trump plans to have the White House on shutdown so everyone can help him with his tweets.) I asked Maggie to introduce herself to DWT voters with a guest post explaining what she's hoping to accomplish today and tomorrow. If you like what you read, please consider contributing to her campaign by clicking on the 2020 Blue America Senate thermometer on the right.

There Is More Than Enough Evidence For Congress To Begin Impeachment Proceeding
by Maggie Toulouse Oliver

Haven’t read the Mueller Report? Well, you’re in good company. Neither have most of the folks in Washington, D.C.

As a result, Congress continues to ignore the preponderance of evidence presented by Special Robert Mueller that President Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice.

And Congress continues to abdicate its authority-- and responsibility-- to hold this president accountable.

I’m not willing to let the president off the hook. I have called for and continue to call for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings. Indeed, all across my home state of New Mexico and the United States, voters are demanding that Congress do its job.

But House leadership is not taking action. My opponent in the New Mexico U.S. Senate race, Congressman Ben Ray Luján, is a member of Democratic House Leadership, which, in keeping with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s position, has refused to move forward with impeachment. Congressman Luján even voted last week to end debate and effectively kill the articles of impeachment introduced by Rep. Al Green. That’s not the leadership we need.

I’m proud to be the only candidate in this race for U.S. Senate to be calling for impeachment. It’s past time for action.

Having read the Mueller Report, I am convinced that there is more than enough evidence to begin impeachment proceedings. If more people-- especially those in Washington-- had read the Mueller Report, I am convinced that everyone would be demanding impeachment proceedings.

To help those who may not have read the report hear the overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice, today I will start reading the Mueller Report live on Facebook and Instagram. I encourage everyone to tune in to get the facts.

And the facts are clear: President fired FBI Director James Comey, instructed people to shut down investigations into the President’s associates, and so many other obstructive actions that-- to my mind-- are exactly what the founders were talking about when they wrote “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

In light of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s upcoming testimony before the U.S. Congress on Wednesday, I’m clearing my scheduling and dedicating my time to reading Volume 2 of the Mueller Report because anyone who has read the Mueller Report knows that there’s more than enough evidence in it to warrant starting impeachment proceedings.

The bottom line is that if more members of Congress-- and people all across America-- had read what I’m reading live today and tomorrow, there would be no question that it is time to start impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. I’m the only candidate in the U.S. Senate race in New Mexico calling for impeachment proceedings. I won’t stop talking about this until the people in Washington finally hold this President accountable.

#MuellerTimewithMaggie