The South Was Once Solidly Blue-- And Significant Chunks Of It Are Headed In That Direction Again... And Fast

There are 10 congressional seats or parts of congressional seats in the Dallas-Ft Worth Metro, 5 in the San Antonio Metro, 6 in the Austin Metro and 9 in the Houston Metro, although some of these districts are shared between Metro areas. The Atlanta Metro has 6 congressional districts. Phoenix has 7 districts. And Orlando has 6. These are pretty much the fastest-growing metros in the country. Migration is changing the real PVIs of these Sun Belt districts-- and their partisan political orientations-- far more quickly than the glacial Cook Report can keep up with the changes. We'll come back to that in a moment. These are the districts, their current Representatives and the PVIs Cook currently assigns them (Blue colored districts are the most likely to flip in 2020):

Dallas-Ft Worth

• TX-03- Van Taylor (R)- R+11
• TX-05- Lance Gooden (R)- R+16
• TX-06- Ron Wright (R)- R+9
• TX-12- Kay Granger (R)- R+18
• TX-24- Kenny Marchant (R)- R+9
• TX-25 (shared with Austin)- Roger Williams (R)- R+11
• TX-26- Michael Burgess (R)- R+18
• TX-30- Eddie Bernice Johnson (D)- D+29
• TX-32- Colin Allred (D)- R+5
• TX-33- Marc Veasey (D)- D+23

San Antonio

• TX-20- Joaquin Castro (D)- D+10
• TX-21 (shared with Austin)- Chip Roy (R)- R+10
• TX-23- Will Hurd (R)- R+1
• TX-28- Henry Cuellar (D)- D+9
• TX-35 (shared with Austin)- Lloyd Doggett (D)- D+15

Austin

• TX-10- (shared with Houston)- Michael McCaul (R)- R+9
• TX-17- Bill Flores (R)- R+12
• TX-21- (shared with San Antonio)- Chip Roy (R)- R+10
• TX-25- (shared with Dallas-Ft Worth)- Roger Williams (R)- R+11
• TX-31- John Carter- R+10
• TX-35 (shared with San Antonio)- Lloyd Doggett (D)- D+15

Houston

• TX-02- Dan Crenshaw (R)- R+11
• TX-07- Lizzie Fletcher (D)- R+7
• TX-08- Kevin Brady (R)- R+28
• TX-09- Al Green (D)- D+29
• TX-10- (shared with Austin)- Michael McCaul (R)- R+9
• TX-18- Sheila Jackson Lee (D)- D+27
• TX-22- Pete Olson (R)- R+10
• TX-29- Sylvia Garcia (D)- D+19
• TX-36- Brian Babin (R)- R+26

Atlanta

• GA-04- Hank Johnson (D)- D+24
• GA-05- John Lewis (D)- D+34
• GA-06- Lucy McBath (D)- R+8
• GA-07- Rob Woodall (R)- R+9
• GA-11- Barry Loudermilk (R)- R+17
• GA-13- David Scott (D)- D+20

Phoenix

• AZ-01- Tom O'Halleran (D)- R+2
• AZ-03- Raul Grijalva (D)- D+13
• AZ-05- Andy Biggs (R)- R+15
• AZ-06- David Schweikert (R)- R+9
• AZ-07- Ruben Gallego (D)- D+23
• AZ-08- Debbie Lesko (R)- R+13
• AZ-09- Greg Stanton (D)- D+4

Orlando

• FL-06- Michael Waltz (R)- R+7
• FL-07- Stephanie Murphy (D)- even
• FL-09- Darren Soto (D)- D+5
• FL-10- Val Demings (D)- D+11
• FL-11- Daniel Webster (R)- R+15
• FL-15- Ross Spano (R)- R+6

Writing for The Atlantic yesterday, Derek Thompson noted that "Liberals in America have a density problem. Across the country, Democrats dominate in cities, racking up excessive margins in urban cores while narrowly losing in suburban districts and sparser states. Because of their uneven distribution of votes, the party consistently loses federal elections despite winning the popular vote... All over the world, liberal, college-educated voters pack into cities, where they dilute their own voting power through excessive concentration. So just imagine what would happen to the American political picture if more Democrats moved out of their excessively liberal enclaves to redistribute themselves more evenly across the vast expanse of Red America?"

And they are. "The New York City metro area," he continued, "is shrinking by 277 people every day. Other areas bleeding thousands of net movers each year include Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Chicago, Boston, and Baltimore-- all in states that routinely vote for Democrats by wide margins. These movers are U-Hauling to ruddier states in the South and West. The five fastest-growing metros of the past few years-- Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, Atlanta, and Orlando, Florida-- are in states won by Trump. The other metro areas with a population of at least 1 million that grew by at least 1.5 percent last year were Las Vegas; Austin, Texas; Orlando, Florida; Raleigh, North Carolina; Jacksonville, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; San Antonio; Tampa, Florida; and Nashville, Tennessee. All of those metros are in red or purple states."

This drip-drip-drip of young residents trickling down into red-state suburbs is helping to turn southern metros into Democratic strongholds. (Of course, migration isn’t the only factor pushing these metros leftward, but more on that later.) In Texas, Democrats’ advantage in the five counties representing Houston, Dallas–Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin (the “Texas Five” in the graph below) grew from 130,000 in the 2012 presidential election to nearly 800,000 in the 2018 Senate election.

In Arizona, from 2012 to 2016, Democrats narrowed their deficit in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, by 100,000 votes. Two years later, in the 2018 Senate election, the county swung Democratic, with Democrats gaining another 100,000 net votes.

In Georgia, from the 2012 presidential election to the 2018 gubernatorial elections, the four counties constituting most of Atlanta and its suburbs-- Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, and Gwinnett-- increased their Democratic margin by more than 250,000.

What’s remarkable about these changes isn’t just their size, but their resemblance to Trump’s 2016 margins. Trump won Texas in 2016 by 800,000 votes. He won Arizona by 90,000 votes. He won Georgia by 170,000 votes. If these states’ biggest metros continue to move left at the same rate, there is every reason to believe that Texas, Arizona, and Georgia could be toss-ups quite soon.

As noted above, migration isn’t the only reason southern metros might be shifting to the Democratic Party: Young southerners are surely pulling their region left, while older residents could be switching parties in response to Trump. Republicans have likely hurt themselves by moving further to the right to galvanize their white exurban and rural base, even as their support has thinned in the suburbs and among working-class white women.

But domestic migration is key. Just look at Texas. CNN exit polls for the state’s 2018 Senate election showed that Beto O’Rourke was buoyed by recent movers, winning more than 60 percent of those who had moved to Texas within the past 10 years. At current migration rates, the “Texas Five” counties could easily add another 200,000 votes from 2016 to 2020, putting more pressure on Trump’s margin in the state. A September poll conducted by Univision and the University of Houston found the top-six Democratic presidential contenders all leading Trump in Texas.

Outside of national elections, the blue flood of the Sun Belt could have other political implications, such as more showdowns between blue cities and red states. As The Atlantic’s David Graham has argued, North Carolina’s GOP-led general assembly has waged war against liberal cities such as Charlotte-- for instance, by reversing a local ordinance that banned discrimination against LGBTQ people. This sort of state-city showdown could become a regular feature of southern politics. In the past six months, both the Dallas Morning News and the Dallas Observer have run features bemoaning the Californication of northern Texas, with the former noting that “conservatives fear these domestic migrants will bring with them a liberal ideology that would disturb the Texas way of living.”

While such confrontations may be inevitable, over time the growth of liberal metros could force the Republican Party, which has lately been living off the fumes of retrograde xenophobia, to compete more aggressively for votes in the New South-- that is, to be a party for moderates, black voters, and immigrants. The political shift could swing the other way too: Democratic transplants to Dallas and Houston could edge right toward Republican territory, won over by their conservative neighbors’ arguments for lower levels of state and local taxation.

Overall, the southern suburbanization of Democratic votes could be a force for good, not only for Democrats but also, perhaps, for the future GOP-- and therefore for the country at large. Without changes to the Electoral College or to the distribution of Democratic votes, the U.S. may be doomed to replay the 2016 election for several more cycles. Coastal liberals will remain justifiably furious that their votes are systematically discounted, while rural conservatives will remain justifiably indignant that the heart of American business and media has flocked to cities that regard the countryside as a xenophobic backwater. The southern blue flood is not a cure-all for this schism. But if more white rural families join liberal transplants and nonwhite families in America’s diverse southern suburbs, Americans might discover, through the sheer fact of neighborly proximity, a less vitriolic and more optimistic political future.

Orlando Welcomes Trumpanzee's Reelection Campaign: "Anybody But Trump"

Early this morning, around sunrise, the Washington Post published a piece by Aaron Blake, This Is Trump's Worst Poll Number-- And What It Means. "There is one poll question I keep coming back to when I think about President Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign," he wrote. "It’s the one in which pollsters ask whether people would definitely not vote for him. This is an especially bad number for Trump. National polls generally show a majority of people (51-56 percent) say they wouldn’t-- with Fox News polls being the exception. And now a poll also shows that number is remarkably bad for Trump in a surprising place: Texas. The University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll shows 43 percent say they’d never back Trump, and another 7 percent say they’re inclined to vote against him. That’s half the state intending not to vote for a Republican president... in Texas."

Personally, the Trump polling number I think is the most important one is about his honesty. I've watched it descend over the last two years. In the most recent polls I've seen where they ask questions about his honesty and trustworthiness, he's down in the 20s. That's lower than the percent of people who say they are definitely voting for him. How sick is that. If 28% of voters say he's honest and 36% say they're definitely voting for him... well, 8% of the general population seems content to vote for someone they know is a liar and deceiver.

I recall a few years ago having a discussion with a member of Congress who was pissed off about the overly partisan nature of the Orlando Sentinel, long practically an arm of the Florida Republican Party. The paper did everything it could to twist even its news coverage against Democrats. He fantasized about fairer-minded citizens buying it. The Sentinel, with its 151,000 daily circulation (over quarter million on weekends), plays a huge part in shaping the narrative along the I-4 Corridor, the key to statewide electoral victories in Florida.

Today, Trump officially kicked off his national reelection campaign in Orlando. (The Baby Trump blimp was also on hand.) The Sentinel's editorial board welcomed him with this: Our Orlando Sentinel endorsement for president in 2020: Not Donald Trump. "We’re here to announce," wrote the editors, "our endorsement for president in 2020, or, at least, who we’re not endorsing: Donald Trump."

Some readers will wonder how we could possibly eliminate a candidate so far before an election, and before knowing the identity of his opponent.

Because there’s no point pretending we would ever recommend that readers vote for Trump.

After 2½ years we’ve seen enough.

Enough of the chaos, the division, the schoolyard insults, the self-aggrandizement, the corruption, and especially the lies.

So many lies-- from white lies to whoppers-- told out of ignorance, laziness, recklessness, expediency or opportunity.

Trump’s capacity for lying isn’t the surprise here, though the frequency is.

It’s the tolerance so many Americans have for it.

There was a time when even a single lie-- a phony college degree, a bogus work history-- would doom a politician’s career.

Not so for Trump, who claimed in 2017 that he lost the popular vote because millions of people voted illegally (they didn’t). In 2018 he said North Korea was no longer a nuclear threat (it is). And in 2019 he said windmills cause cancer (they don’t). Just last week he claimed the media fabricated unfavorable results from his campaign’s internal polling (it didn’t).

According to a Washington Post database, the president has tallied more than 10,000 lies since he took office.

Trump’s successful assault on truth is the great casualty of this presidency, followed closely by his war on decency.

Trump insults political opponents and national heroes alike with middle-school taunts. He demonstrates no capacity for empathy or remorse. He misuses his office to punish opponents, as when he recently called for a boycott of AT&T to get even with his least favorite media outlet, CNN. He tears down institutions, once airily suggesting the U.S. should try having a leader for life as China now allows. He seems incapable of learning a lesson, telling an ABC interviewer last week-- just two months after Robert Mueller’s report on election interference was released-- that he would accept dirt on an opponent from Russia or China.

Trump has diminished our standing in the world. He reneges on deals, attacks allies and embraces enemies.

This nation must never forget that humiliating public moment in Helsinki in 2018 when the president of the United States chose to accept Vladimir Putin’s denials of Russian interference in the 2016 election over the unanimous assessment of the American intelligence community.

Such a betrayal by a U.S. president would have been the unforgivable political sin in normal times.

As if that’s not enough, Trump declares his love for North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, a genuine villain who starves and enslaves his people and executes his enemies with antiaircraft guns and flamethrowers.

But he wrote the president a “beautiful letter.” Flattery will get you everywhere with this president, and that’s dangerous.

Domestically, the president’s signature issue-- immigration-- has moved in fits and starts. Happily, he abandoned pursuing an outright-- and unconstitutional-- ban on Muslims entering the U.S., opting instead to restrict travel for people from a handful of nations, most of them majority Muslim.

He’s tried separating families, sending troops to the border and declaring a national emergency. For all of that, illegal border crossings are, as the president himself calls it, at crisis levels.

He blames House Democrats because casting blame is Trump’s forte. But Republicans controlled the House and the Senate for two full years. That seemed like an ideal time to fix what the president believes ails our immigration laws.

Even with Democrats now controlling the House, where is Trump’s much-touted deal-making mojo, an attribute he campaigned on?

“But the economy!”

Yes, the market has done well since Trump’s election.

The S&P 500 was up about 21% between Trump’s inauguration and May 31 of his third year in office. Under President Obama, it was up about 56% in that same period.

Unemployment is headed down, as it was during seven straight years under Obama.

Wages are up, and that’s a welcome change. But GDP increases so far are no better than some periods under Obama. Deficit spending under Obama was far too high, in part because of the stimulus needed to dig out of the Great Recession. Under Trump, it’s still headed in the wrong direction, once again pushing $1 trillion even though the economy is healthy.

Trump seems to care nothing about the deficit and the national debt, which once breathed life into the Tea Party.

Through all of this, Trump’s base remains loyal. Sadly, the truest words Trump might ever have spoken was when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose his supporters.

This non-endorsement isn’t defaulting to whomever the Democrats choose. This newspaper has a history of presidential appointments favoring Republicans starting in the mid-20th century. Except for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, the Sentinel backed Republican presidential nominees from 1952 through 2004, when we recommended John Kerry over another four years of George W. Bush.

As recently as 2012 we recommended Republican Mitt Romney because of what seemed at the time to be Obama’s failure to adequately manage the nation’s finances.

If-- however unlikely-- a Republican like Romney, now a senator from Utah, or former Ohio Gov. John Kasich successfully primaried the president, we would eagerly give them a look. Same if an independent candidate mounted a legitimate campaign.

We’d even consider backing Trump if, say, he found the proverbial cure for cancer or-- about as likely-- changed the essence of who he is (he won’t).

The nation must endure another 1½ years of Trump. But it needn’t suffer another four beyond that.

We can do better. We have to do better.

Quinnipiac also welcomed Trump to Florida today-- with more horrible news for him and his campaign (and for the Russians, Saudis and other plutocratic governments)  Quinnipiac's new poll of Florida registered voters shows all the viable 2020 Democrats beating Trump in head-to-head match-ups.

• Biden beats Trump- 50-41%
• Bernie beats Trump- 48-42%
• Elizabeth Warren beats Trump- 47-43%
• Kamala Harris beats Trump- 45-44%
• Beto beats Trump- 45-44%
• McKinsey Pete beats Trump- 44-43%

Among Florida independent voters, Biden leads Trump 54-32%, Bernie leads 51-34%, Warren leads 47-47%, Kamala leads 44-38%, McKiney Pete leads 44-37%, and Beto leads 44-38%.

Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll: "Florida Republicans have won the last five major statewide elections, all by very close margins, but Sunshine State Democrats see these very early numbers as a sign that their losing streak might be coming to an end... While most Florida voters are feeling better financially, President Trump remains underwater with a 44 percent job approval rating and a 51 percent disapproval rating."

Should Republican Billionaires Be Picking Democratic Candidates The Way They Already Pick GOP Candidates?

Let's start with some news: Last week, Fox News' James Rupert Murdoch, a British billionaire, put half a million dollars into one of Nancy Jacobson's shady No Labels SuperPACs that aims to fill Congress with candidates from the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party. Their current goal is a smear campaign against Alan Grayson. Most recently, Jacobson pulled off the same filth against Marie Newman in Illinois’ 3rd District House primary, spending $931,600 to spread absolute lies against Newman while bolstering anti-Choice Blue Dog Dan Lipinski.

Jacobson, widely considered one of the most vicious and destructive players in American politics, runs a dark web of 8 of the most pernicious and sleazy SuperPACs in the country, United for Progress, United Together, Forward Not Back, Progress Tomorrow, Patriotic Americans PAC, Citizens for a Strong America, etc, entirely funded by contributions from 5 and 6-figure right wing donors, such as Rupert Murdoch, his son James Murdoch, Chicago White Sox and Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf, hedge fund manager Louis Bacon, former Major League Baseball Commissioner Allan Selig and Wheels Inc. executive Jim Frank.

By Friday they had spent $138,401 on mail and digital ads trying to bolster Grayson's worthless right-of-center New Dem opponent, Darren Soto, and attacking Grayson.

This cycle, Jacobson has also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars from Republican contributors trying to win Democratic nominations for far right candidates running against progressives. Recently she failed in Pennsylvania, where Susan Wild beat No Labels DINO John Morganelli and she failed in Albuquerque, where Debra Haaland beat the No Labels DINO, Damon Martinez.

Darren Soto is exactly the kind of fake Democrat Jacobson, the Murdochs and other GOP billionaires want to see beat progressives like Grayson. Soto voted to prosecute all abortions as murder and voted to force women who want an abortion to undergo a humiliating procedure called "transvaginal ultrasound." Since being primaried by Grayson he's been apologizing for those votes, saying he "made a mistake." He hasn't apologized for the votes that earned him "A" ratings from the NRA-- twice. And because of those hair-raising votes, the NRA endorsed him. He voted for Trump-sponsored laws 58 times in Congress and both times impeaching Trump came up in Congress, Soto voted NO. The reason No Labels is so enthusiastic about him is because he has said that he is "open-minded" about phasing out Social Security benefits or eliminating them altogether, No Labels' top issue.

Meanwhile, Soto is one of Congress' most corrupt Democrats, well known for partying with lobbyists, spending taxpayer money and campaign money illegally on personal items for himself and his wife. He has even accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign support from Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her charter school allies. Generally speaking he's been a big waste of a solidly blue seat in Congress, accomplishing nothing for anyone... but himself. That compares badly with Grayson's record:

During a debate with Grayson last week, Soto claimed "to be a great champion of women’s rights," a lie Grayson directly challenged, bringing up the specifics of Soto's shameful voting record. Soto had no answer... except to say he regrets those votes. He doesn't regret them enough to turn down the help he's getting now from the anti-Choice extremists who are flooding central Florida with lies against Grayson and nonsensical assertions of Soto's grandeur.

Blue America members have been helping Grayson with his election campaigns since 2006. And he's never let us down-- always one of the 2 or 3 best members of Congress and living up to his promises. He needs us again now. The primary is August 28 and he really needs to get on the air and respond to the lies Jacobson and Murdock are flooding TV and radio with. Please consider contributing what you can by clicking on the Blue America 2018 congressional elections thermometer on the right. As of yesterday another dark money PAC had bought ads on one of the big Spanish language radio stations-- one ad every hour until election day! That's called brain-washing. It's what fascists do; it's what Republicans do. Republican billionaires know their party is going to lose control of Congress in November. So they are working to defeat progressives and make certain friendly conservative DINOs become the nominees of the Democratic Party. We can't let this happen. It's our party, not theirs.

I've Been A Miner For A Heart Of Gold-- Contest

The Blue America contest for Alan Grayson is still going strong. It ends Saturday. We're giving away a very rare gorgeous RIAA-ceritfied double platinum award for Neil Young's HARVEST, his 4th studio album (1972). Just contribute any amount to Alan Grayson's congressional campaign on this ActBlue page. That makes you eligible to win, regardless of how much you give. All the arcane FEC rules are here, if you have the mind of a lawyer. There were very few of these plaques ever made-- just to band members, people who work for Neil a few people at Reprise Records who helped promote Neil's music. You can be as rich as Trump and not be able to buy it. It's not commercially available. But you can win one. Someone will.

Alan is a big Neil Young fan but Alan's wife, Dena, is the real Neil aficionado, even singing his songs to Alan. She's the one who can tell you anything you want to know about every song on HARVEST. Alan's the one who can't stop talking about "Let's Impeach The President" from Neil's Living With War album. This is what he told his own supporters a few days ago:

At a slightly earlier moment in the space-time continuum, Neil Young wrote a song that seems very apt at this moment. The song is called "Let’s Impeach the President." He wrote it regarding an earlier awful President, not the current awful President. But most people whom I know think that this one is more awful than that one-- by a wide margin. Read the lyrics, listen to the case that Neil Young made for impeachment, and ask yourself: Doesn’t Donald Trump deserve it even more?



Let's impeach the President for lying
And misleading our country into war
Abusing all the power that we gave him
And shipping all our money out the door

Who's the man who hired all the criminals
The White House shadows who hide behind closed doors
They bend the facts to fit with their new stories
Of why we have to send our men to war

Let's impeach the President for spying
On citizens inside their own homes
Breaking every law in the country
By tapping our computers and telephones

What if Al Qaeda blew up the levees
Would New Orleans have been safer that way
Sheltered by our government's protection
Or was someone just not home that day?

Flip - Flop
Flip - Flop
Flip - Flop
Flip - Flop

Let's impeach the president for hijacking
Our religion and using it to get elected
Dividing our country into colors
And still leaving black people neglected

Yes, let’s impeach the President. Please contribute to our Dump Trump campaign fund, and earn a chance to win a platinum record award from Neil Young, the singer who said it first

This one's from HARVEST:



The contest ends Saturday. And, like Neil, Alan is a real superstar, not a reality show superstar. And... contest or no contest, we need this guy (Alan Grayson, not Neil) back in Congress. While other candidates-- lots and lots of them, and not just Republicans-- hide under their beds when someone asks them if they'll back impeaching Trump, Grayson makes it clear to voters in the Orlando area that he'll not just back it, he'll lead that movement. His district is covered with these billboards:

One more thing, if you've become used to click on a fundraising thermometer to make your contributions, we have a Blue America Harvest thermometer for you too. Please think for a second about how this isn't just about a contest... it's also electing someone to Congress who's shown us what he can do. Remember Alan in the well of the House, Republicans going absolutely nuts on the floor: "The Republican healthcare plan: Don't Get Sick... If You Get Sick... Die Quickly!" They yelled and screamed he should retract that and apologize. There were even establishment Democrats who asked him to do what the Republicans asked for. You know, he never did, right? That's not Alan Grayson. He'll apologize when he makes a mistake; that was no mistake! It wasn't then... and it isn't now.

Congress Has A Chance To Get Alan Grayson Back Again

The House has 435 seats and there aren't many members who really ever make a positive difference for their constituents. But there are some. Alan Grayson has been one of them.

Darren Soto hasn't been. He's just a bump on a log New Dem who slithered out of the state legislature with an A+ from his pals at the NRA and votes against women's right to Choice. Needless to say, the DCCC loves him; he's their kind of nothing congressman. On hearing that Grayson is running for his old seat, DCCC chair Ben Ray Luján-- notorious for never fighting Republicans and always holding his fire for fellow Democrats-- immediately chimed in with some delusional nonsense about how the little known Soto has "built a robust base of support at home in Central Florida... I’m confident Darren will run a winning campaign and continue to serve the good people of Florida’s 9th District, thanks to his record of supporting hurricane survivors in Florida and Puerto Rico, protecting DREAMers and all hard-working immigrants, and standing up for women’s equality in the workplace and their access to quality, affordable healthcare." Utter Beltway nonsense.

I wish Grayson was running against Luján, a closet case from deep blue New Mexico district (PVI D+8), who has never had an serious opposition and who the NRCC has never challenged. This cycle he has no primary challenger and his Republican "opponent," Steve McFall, hasn't raised the $5,000 that would trigger an FEC report while Luján has already raised $1,077,784.

And speaking of campaign contributions, over in Orlando's FL-09, Soto has raised $570,463 and even before officially announcing Tuesday, Grayson had raised $402,775 and had $694,967 cash-on-hand.

Responding to Luján's negativity, Grayson, in an interview on WFTV, said "I don’t need anyone’s permission to run for office. What I’ve done is ask the people. I can run anywhere in the state." When he was making up his mind about running again, he was approached by a Soto staffer who told him Soto surrogates would open the gates of hell on him and that would you every false attack that Republicans and right-wing Democrats had ever used against Grayson. Yesterday ABC News reported that Soto had told them that he expected Grayson to go negative in the primary campaign but says he'll seek to avoid that kind of race. "We expect him to be negative but I have always and will continue to run a positive campaign about how to improve the lives of our constituents. To quote former first lady Michelle Obama, 'when they go low, we go high.'" And then immediately launched into a typically negative attack: "Grayson has never considered what's wise for Democratic unity when considering his actions. He could have helped build a Democratic majority running in one of several open seats, but chose not to do so," Soto said.

78-year-old Nancy Pelosi stands for eight hours on four-inch heels on the floor of the House, begging Democrats to vote against the Budget Act the next day because it wipes out the last vestiges of hope for the DREAMers. Puerto Rican Congressmembers Gutierrez, Serrano and Velasquez-- and virtually every other member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus-- heed her call, and vote "No." Despite Luján's bullcrap about Soto protecting DREAMers, Darren Soto votes "yes." His excuse is that the bill somehow is good for Puerto Rico, although Gutierrez, Serrano and Velasquez didn’t see it that way.

Soto has accomplished exactly nothing in his one term in Congress. He's the ultimate do-nothing backbencher, the polar opposite of Alan Grayson, who was renowned for working across the aisle to pass the most legislation of any member of Congress-- even when the House was controlled by Republicans! You would think the DCCC would be excited to get him back-- if you knew nothing at all about the DCCC.

This morning, Grayson let his supporters know he's running for the seat in his old district. "I’m running for Congress," he wrote, "because our progressive goals-- justice, equality and peace-- need a champion in Congress. Think about it.  Who can you think of, in the U.S. House of Representatives, whom you would call a champion for progress?  On a good day, one or two or three of them.  On a bad day, none. We need someone in Congress who actually knows how to get things done.  And I passed 121 pieces of legislation-- more than anyone else-- even when the Republicans were in charge."

We need someone in Congress who won’t be cowed by Donald Trump’s Twitter feed.

We need someone in Congress who lays the foundation for future progress. Like my Seniors Deserve a Raise Act, for the first increase in Social Security benefits in 43 years. Like my Seniors Have Eyes, Ears and Teeth Act, to expand Medicare to cover eyeglasses, hearing aids and dental care. Like my Freedom From Fear Act, to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Like my College for All Act, introducing the Bernie Sanders free public college law in the House.

Because it’s not enough just to win. You have to make people’s lives better.

And, ultimately, that's exactly what makes Grayson better than your garden variety bump on a long congressmember-- making people's lives better, not just a career in self-service. That Act Blue congressional thermometer above is a way you can contribute to Grayson's campaign. Please click on it and donate what you can.

Why The Cult Of Republican-Lite Doesn't Work-- Case Studies In Florida

Republicans are campaigning too-- and with the DCCC as an opponent, you'd think the odds would be stacked in their favor. Problem for the GOP, though is that the NRCC is almost as inept and incompetent as the DCCC. Almost. The letter below didn't come from the NRCC, it came from the campaign of Scott Sturgill, the lead dog among the 4 Republicans who would like to take on wretched freshman Blue Dog Stephanie Murphy in the suburbs north of Orlando. It includes the Orlando Executive Aiirport and Orlando International, Winter Park, Altamonte Springs, Sanford on the south shore of Lake Monroe, Oviedo, all of Lake Jesup, Osceola and Lake Harney in the East and Orlando east of Orange Avenue and the 4 Freeway. Previously the PVI was R+4 but it was bumped up to a perfectly even district now, making it much easier for a Democrat to win. Obama, albeit narrowly, lost both times but in 2016 Hillary won the district 51.4% to 44.1%. The medium income is $52,197, about $5,000 more than the state average. The district is 66% white, 19% Latino and almost 10% black.

The NRCC, desperate for candidates nationally, has included Sturgill in their Young Guns program, one off only 3 in Florida, freezing out state Rep. Mike Miller (who's raised nearly as much money as Sturgill) as well as Vennia Francois and Judson Sapp. As on the FEC December 31 reporting deadline Democrat Stephanie Murphy had raised $1,342,343, while Stroll had brought in $308,456 and Miller $213,011. In his kick-off statement, Miller, generally considered a far right loon, said "This district should no longer be represented by someone whose vote is controlled by Nancy Pelosi and the ultra-left." Odd thing to say about one of the most conservative Blue Dog Dems in Congress? Not at all... if you live in Republican fantasy-land.

In fact, yesterday, I got the same kind of malarky from Sturgill's campaign:

Hey, Howard--

I appreciate you taking a minute to read my email. I wanted to ask you… do you know Scott Sturgill?



Scott’s a true conservative champion running for Congress in Florida, and he could really use your help.

His opponent, Stephanie Murphy, is about as liberal as it gets: she supports Obamacare, sanctuary cities, and-- this is the worst part for me-- abortion after the unborn child is more than twenty (20) weeks old and can feel pain.



 The good news is that even with her liberal pal Hillary Clinton on the ballot driving up Democrat turnout in Florida, Murphy was only able to eek out a win with 51.5% of the vote. This year, if conservatives like you and me stand up and make our voices heard, we can send her packing and put a true conservative like Scott in that seat.



 Click here to let me know if I can count on you to help Scott defeat liberal Stephanie Murphy and secure our Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

I’m proud to call Scott Sturgill a friend, and I know he’ll make a fantastic congressman. Unlike Stephanie Murphy, he takes a strong stand against wasteful spending and demands that politicians must adhere to the same rules as everyone else. He’s not a career politician, and he’s only going to Congress because he’s sick and tired of feeling sick and tired-- and at some point you’ve got to stand up and fix it yourself.



 This election is winnable-- but we can’t do it alone. We need your help, Howard. Add your name and let Scott & I know we can count on your support when it counts.



Thanks so much for everything. I hope you’re doing well.



-- Ian

These are some very conventional Republican talking points that they send to their moron followers everywhere in the country. And they underscores something that many establishment Democrats simply do not understand. The GOP will unleash their trip against any Democrat no matter how they actually vote. They’re going to say the same things about you, regardless. Stephanie Murphy, like I said, is about as right-wing as a Democrat can be. ProgressivePunch rates her a solid "F," not even close. Her lifetime crucial vote score is an abysmal 41.38, the worst of any Florida Democrat. In fact, the only Democrats who vote against progressive proposals more frequently than her are Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Henry Cuellar (TX) and Collin Peterson (MN). When Ryan and McCarthy want to call one of their horrifying bills "bipartisan," they go right to Stephanie Murphy. That's not going to help her with the Koch brothers-financed attack machine goes into action. It may help her-- and eventually it will for sure-- turning off base Democratic voters, once they figure out how she votes. (She's far worse than Lipinski, for example, who is bering primaried right now, and has a lifetime crucial vote score of 57.43.

Another clueless Blue Dog from the area, former Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, represented chunks of what is now district. She fretted over every vote, trying not to give the Republicans anything that they could use against her, and then they ran $2 million of ads against her for destroying Medicare. She never saw it coming. And she lost her seat to crackpot teabagger Sandy Adams. Republicans though she was a Pelosi-clone liberal and were willing to vote for the crazy teabagger instead of the conservative Democrat. And progressives in the 2010 midterm election just stayed away from the polls, saying too themselves, "why should I vote for this drunken Republican-lite turd?" (Yeah, she was all that). And she lost-- in a 60-40% landslide-- to a silly extremist, who held the seat for one term, just as Kosmas had.

The DCCC wastes its time recruiting these Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and they waste their money supporting them. They kill momentum for the kind of legislation that would make the Democratic Party popular (instead of--barely-- the lesser of two evils) and if they're in swing districts they lose anyway, once voters figure out how terrible they are.

2019 Will Be More Palatable With Alan Grayson In Congress Denouncing Trump's Lies Daily

The polls Morning Consult has been doing for Politico have been relatively benign for Trump. A couple of weeks ago, while almost every other poll showed Trump struggling to keep his job approval from slipping out of the low 30s and into the 20s-- which is widely believed will trigger impeachment hearings--  Morning Consult had him at 45% approval (and 51% disapproval). That’s about the best Trump has had from any legitimate polling firm-- "the best," that is, until you look more closely and realize that most Americans now realize Trump is a liar.

Alan Grayson did a different kind of poll this week, one that he isn’t attempting to pretend is "scientific." He asked his own followers what the biggest political  lie of the last 100 years was. The results were fairly predictable:

• Trump: "Trump and Russia is a made-up story" - 55%
• Bush: "Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" - 35%
• Nixon: "I am not a crook" - 10%

More than half of us think that Lying Trump's lie about the Russians is bigger than the lying lies of both Lying Nixon AND Lying Bush. Let that sink in for a minute (or for a минут, as Trump might say to his good friend Vladimir).

…Trump beat Nixon in this World Series of Lying.  And even my kids-- none of whom was alive when Nixon was alive-- know that Nixon was a liar’s liar. They know this from Futurama, which featured Richard Nixon’s severed head in 11 different episodes. Here is my favorite Futurama Nixon line:

Bailiff: “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

Nixon’s Head: Um... am I under oath when I take the oath?

And Bush?  Bush suffered a momentary spasm of honesty when he gave Karl Rove the nickname “Turd Blossom.”  But that moment passed quickly, like a kidney stone, and then it was back to the uninterrupted BS.

But by our vote, Trump is the capo dei capi (boss of all bosses) of lies.  Trump is the Denier-in-Chief. He is the Barry Bonds of BS.  He is a six-foot-tall colostomy bag of crap. He is the preening, peacock Pinocchio of politics.

And Trump’s biggest lie of all? The lie that he was legitimately elected.

I think Grayson is going to run for Congress again. There are 3 dead-weight, utterly useless conservative Democratic congresmembers representing the Orlando area-- Blue Dog Stephanie Murphy and New Dems Darren Soto and Val Demings. Three wasted seats in Congress. I wish Grayson could run for all three simultaneously and have three votes and three times as much floor time. He'd certainly use it more effectively than Murphy, Soto and Demings do-- combined.

By the way, Grayson hasn’t declared he’s running for a congressional district yet but he seems to have an informal campaign. “Team Grayson” sent out a fund-raising letter today:

"Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est," said Julius Caesar.  And, similarly, Congress is divided in three parts:

1 The glad-handers.
2 The empty suits.
3 The sacks of hooey.

Help establish a fourth category: (4) LEADER.  Support Alan Grayson’s campaign for Congress, right here and right now.

The glad-handers are the ones with that permanent smile affixed to their faces. They are the survivors of the Joker’s laughing-gas attack. They seem to be listening to some elevator music that no one else can hear. Sometimes, they hum quietly to themselves. Whenever they see you, they look you in the eye, offer a firm handshake, and compliment you on your excellent appearance. They’re the ones who suggest that you look like you’ve lost some weight, even though you know that your belt is buckled on the last hole. And every time they open their mouths, it’s to thank some distinguished gentlemen or esteemed lady with whom it has been an honor to serve. They are very fond of each and every large donor.

Alan Grayson is not a glad-hander.

The empty suits are the ones who originally ran for office because they could obtain no other form of gainful employment. First the city council, then the county commission, then the tax assessor, then state senator, then Member of Congress. They have mastered the art of falling upward. They always have a confused look in their eyes, and they don’t even feign competence. They end each week with a sign of relief-- nothing bad has happened. They live in fear that some enterprising reporter will ask about their greatest accomplishments. On the other hand, they have no fear that anyone will ever identify them on the street. They come, they go, and it’s as if they were never there.

Alan Grayson is not an empty suit.

The sacks of hooey ask the same question, all day long: “what’s in it for me?” They’re the ones who enjoy the surf-and-turf with lobbyists, night after night. They’re the ones who treat every vote series as an imposition. If it’s your amendment, they’ll turn to you and complain, “I was right in the middle of lunch!” They lease a new Lexus each year, at taxpayer expense. They schedule campaign fundraisers in California and Florida during Winter Break, and they bring the whole family. They insist on an assignment on one of the “money committees” (that’s what they’re actually called-- money committees) in order to pad their campaign accounts. For $20,000, they’ll be your BFF. Some of them will even tell you that.

Alan Grayson is not a sack of hooey.

In his last two congressional races, Alan Grayson was the ONLY Member of Congress who raised most of his campaign funds from small donors like you. PLEASE make it happen again-- sign up to give $20.18 each month. Because Congress does NOT need another glad-hander, empty suit or sack of hooey. Congress needs Alan Grayson, just as WE DO.

I’m happy to get this confirmation Grayson is going to run. Hopefully, he’ll feel that there are a number-- not a great number-- of congressmembers already taking leadership roles in pushing the agenda he stands for as well-- men and women like Ted Lieu (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and other I know Grayson admires like Jose Serrano (D-NY), Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and John Lewis (D-GA). Not to mention all the candidates who will be coming into Congress in 2019. Long before people had ever heard of “IronStache,” outside of Wisconsin, Grayson was the first (former) congressman to endorse Randy Bryce for Paul Ryan’s seat. A few weeks Grayson asked his own supporters to contribute money to Illinois progressive David Gill. Grayson as parti of a team is what I’d love to see playing a dominating role in Congress starting in 2019-- a team that includes some of Grayson’s old friends and some of the new generation of candidates he’s going to love, especially the idea-machines like Kaniela Ing (HI), Austin Frerick (IA), Jess King (PA), Derrick Crowe (TX), Lillian Salerno (TX) and Dan Canon (IN).

And by the way, for all of Trump’s absurd bragging about accomplishing more than any other president in history, this is the list of what he has actually accomplished in his first miserable year in office (courtesy of presidential scholar Dan Molina):

• Most days vacationing*
• Most games of golf played
• Least amount of bills signed
• Lowest approval ratings
• Most provable lies
• Most cabinet firings
• Most criminal indictments

* Trumpanzee delusional fantasy world built on lies: "I would rarely leave the White House because there's so much work to be done. I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off." In reality Trump has spent more time on vacation in his first year than Obama, Clinton, Reagan and Carter combined.

To Impeach or Not To Impeach— A Question That Is Vexing Democrats

When I say the question of impeachment is vexing Democrats, I don’t mean the millions of Democratic voters and small donors. They overwhelmingly want to see Trump impeached. I would venture to guess they want to see Trump in a cage. But I’m not venturing a guess about impeachment. Polls show that 49% of all voters support impeachment. But among self-identified Democratic voters that number climbs to an astronomical 85%. And that was back in late October. On Tuesday Kyle Cheney and Heather Caygle reported for Politico that if the Democrats take back the House next year— as seems likely (not not because of Democratic leadership which is widely disdained )— party leaders “will face an immediate, fateful choice: to pursue Trump's impeachment as the base demands, or to coax their allies away from the doomsday button… Democratic hostility toward the Republican president seems to intensify daily.” And that hostility will turn on stale hacks like Pelosi and Hoyer as soon as they put the kibosh on impeachment.

Those clueless and stale hacks— plus the Republican wing of the Democratic Party (the Blue Dogs and New Dems in Congress)—claim to “recall the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton [and] are wary of sparking a political backlash for appearing too eager to remove a president without buy-in from independents and even some Republicans. Their tallest task may be persuading fellow Democrats to cool their jets. How the party handles the explosive question of impeachment could determine whether its new majority is still standing two years later.” Pelosi’s and Hoyer’s heads on pikes is what they should really be worrying about.

"Impeachment, it's not something you ought to welcome. It's not something you ought to be ready to— it's not something you want," said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who was elected by his colleagues last week to be the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, the panel that handles impeachment matters.

If Democrats retake the House, Nadler will instantly become the party's gatekeeper on the issue. In fact, his expertise in constitutional law— as well as his outsized voice opposing the Clinton impeachment in 1998— was a factor in his selection to lead committee Democrats. While he says impeachment would surely be on the table in a Democrat-led House, it's far from certain it would be the right call— politically or constitutionally. And it'll be up to his committee to tell voters why.

"If we were in the majority and if we decide that the evidence isn't there for impeachment— or even if the evidence is there we decide it would tear the country apart too much, there's no buy-in, there's no bipartisanship and we shouldn't do it for whatever reason— if we decide that, then it's our duty to educate the country why we decided it," Nadler said in an interview.

It's a risky proposition with an animated Democratic base demanding the party's leaders use the full range of their powers to target Trump. And some of that pressure is coming from within.

"I think a lot of the base would push strongly for impeachment. I think many of us feel like the lines have been crossed," said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), who supports impeaching Trump.

The debate is roiling House Democrats, with progressives forcing a debate over the issue even as vulnerable incumbents, particularly members in districts that favored Trump, worry it could jeopardize their future in Congress.

Earlier this month, 58 House Democrats led by Rep. Al Green (D-TX)— nearly a third of their caucus— voted to begin debate on articles of impeachment against Trump, despite calls by Democratic leadership to spike the measure. And now those on the other side of the debate are already fretting about how far their colleagues and the Democratic base will try to take the issue ahead of the midterms.

“I realize that maybe I’m in the minority in our party,” said Rep. Cheri Bustos (Worthless Piece of Shit Blue Dog-IL), one of 12 Democrats from a district Trump won in 2016, who opposes impeachment. “I know there are contrary views, obviously, with Al Green forcing us to vote on something that I think was entirely unnecessary and hurtful to people in certain districts.”

Democrats [technically speaking] like Bustos say they are waiting for the outcome of a special counsel investigation into Trump associates' ties to Russia, which has raised the specter of indictments in Trump's inner circle and even an obstruction of justice charge against the president himself. Other Democrats say the president's handling of race issues and business conflicts of interest already present grounds for impeachment.

But Huffman acknowledged that most members of the Democratic caucus aren't there yet, and he says many are nervous about the prospect of provoking a political backlash, as Republicans did after impeaching Clinton.

"I think there'll be a lot of nervousness about not repeating that mistake," Huffman said. "As someone who favors impeachment, I feel strongly it needs to be bipartisan. I think that's one of the things Republicans got wrong in '98. The bipartisan piece of it is assurance to the public that you're not just playing partisan games. We're a long way from Republicans joining us."

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), who has filed his own articles of impeachment against Trump, said he understands why some Democrats are reluctant to join the effort right now. But he said it would be a mistake to compare Trump and Clinton.

“There’s a difference between colluding with Russia to win an election and obstructing justice ... and having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky," Cohen said.

Still, some Democrats are trying to urge caution even as their liberal colleagues move full steam ahead. Rep. Gerry Connolly (Crappy New Dem-VA) acknowledged the "enormous antipathy" for Trump in the Democratic base but said impeachment must be treated as "a last resort remedy."

“Winning the House shouldn’t be seen as a referendum one way or the other on the question of impeachment. To insist otherwise calls into question the credibility of the entire effort,” Connolly said. “I think that is a huge mistake and a pitfall at all costs to be avoided.”

Connolly said if Democrats retake the House and decide to consider impeachment, they must prioritize "a fact-based process" that persuades non-Democrats of their course. "I don't take an oath to Tom Steyer or anyone else," he said. "I take an oath to the Constitution of the United States, and this is a constitutional process."

Several Democrats also noted that it makes little sense to pursue impeachment without Republican buy-in because the process would then surely be stopped cold in the Senate. The House requires a simple majority vote to impeach a president, but removal from office requires a two-thirds vote after a trial in the Senate— a threshold that Democrats are certain to be well short of in the next Congress.

Nadler argued that it makes little sense to pursue a partisan impeachment under those conditions. Huffman, though, said he disagreed, calling the House and Senate processes "apples and oranges." It's one of many thickets Democrats will have to wade through if they retake the House.

While Democrats like Cohen have no qualms about talking impeachment now, he acknowledged there would likely have to be a “smoking gun” to get Republicans and even wary Democrats on board.

For Democrats reluctant to even broach the topic, that may mean explicit evidence linking Trump to Russian collusion or obstruction of justice in Mueller’s report. Anything less, Bustos and other moderate lawmakers argue, and Democrats risk imperiling their House majority almost as soon as they take control.

“People in a swing district— I’m literally a 50-50 district— they just want us to get something done,” Bustos [the completely worthless piece of shit Blue Dog from Illinois who was mentored by Rahm Emanuel] said. “If we win back the majority and we don’t stay focused on what people want us to stay focused on, that majority will be short lived.”

No one wants to see Trump railroaded or impeached for partisan reasons. That’s why Democrats want to see the Mueller investigation play out fully. And that’s why Trump and his authoritarian-leaning allies in Congress, like Devin Nunes and Matt Gaetz, don’t. House Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, based on virtually nothing at all except their own psychosis, on December 19,1998. Five Democrats— who subsequently switched parties— voted for impeachment and 5 Republicans voted against it. The Senate acquitted Clinton on all counts on February 12, 1999. The following year the Republican majority shrank to just 3 votes. One impeachment manager, James Rogan (R-CA), lost his seat to a Democrat and that was the last time a Republican represented that seat. Among Democrats winning red seats were 5 horrible Blue Dogs, 2 horrible New Dems and one normal progressive Democrat. These were the winners that year: Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR), Mike Honda (D-CA), Jane Harman (Blue Dog-CA), Adam Schiff (Blue Dog-CA), Susan Davis (New Dem-CA), Steve Israel (Blue Dog-NY), Brad Carson (Blue Dog-OK), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT) and Rick Larsen (New Dem-WA).

Let's end this post with a few words of wisdom from Orlando Democrat Alan Grayson, a firm advocate of a fair, robust impeachment trial: "It looks like even 'leading from behind' has become too much to ask for." America needs this guy back in Congress. There are 3 dead-weight Democrats representing the Orlando area now. None of them are leaders... just dead-weight. Orlando deserves better.