GOP Lame Duck Legislative Moves In Wisconsin And Michigan Will Cost Trump Both States-- And More House Seats

The outgoing Michigan congressional delegation has 9 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Starting in January it will be 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans-- and that despite gerrymandering. Starting in January every constitutional officer will be a Democrat as the state GOP enters the wilderness-- except for the shockingly gerrymandered state legislature where a 52-47% popular vote advantage for Democrats only gave them 47% of the seats. But even there Democrats managed to pick up 6 seats in the House and break the GOP supermajority in both chambers. Next cycle looks even more deadly for the Republicans, especially in terms of Congress. At least 3 more Republicans are on shaky ground for reelection. Fred Upton, for example, only drew 50.2% of the vote last month, despite outspending his opponent nearly 3 to 1 and despite the DCCC virtually ignoring the race (with a pitiful expenditure of just $241,270-- compared to, for example, the $2,033,044 they spent to replace Mike Bishop with New Dem Elissa Slotkin). This session is likely to be Upton's last in Congress.

Paul Clements, a Climate Change and Democratic Party activist who ran against Upton in 2016 told us today that "The games Republicans are playing in the Michigan legislature are so openly contemptuous of the will of the people-- and the media are paying attention-- it will only help to build Democratic momentum towards 2020. Democrats in Michigan are pumped. And many independents and people who stayed home in 2016 are ruing the day Trump became president. After the Democratic sweep of our state's highest offices, the energy is only intensifying to turf Trump and his enablers out of office in 2020."

There's been a steady drumbeat in southwest Michigan for state Rep Jon Hoadley to take on Upton next cycle. Hoadley, a member of the LGBT community, was first elected in 2014 and he represents the entire city of Kalamazoo with some of the suburbs. He's won reelection with huge majorities.

Asked about his priorities in the legislature this cycle, this is how he responded:

Invest in education for today and tomorrow: Let's invest more in our students, give teachers the freedom to teach to the individual students-- not the test, reduce class size, lower or eliminate student debt, and help us compete globally with the best trained talent and skilled labor.

Build an economy that works for everyone: Let's make sure more people are benefiting when productivity and the economy improve. It's time to stop giving away our tax dollars to the most profitable companies through tax breaks that aren't creating new jobs. Let's strengthen unions, raise the minimum wage, and help rebuild the middle class.

Champion social justice and protecting the environment: Let's prohibit discrimination in Michigan based on sexual orientation and gender identity by expanding the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, protect a women's right to choose, end mass incarceration and reform the criminal justice system, promote a caring economy to deal with issues related to long-term care, earn paid sick and family leave time, and make our hospitals safer by improving our laws related to nursing and healthcare. Let's work together to protect our drinking water from lead, PFAS, and other contaminants, while tackling global warming.

Unrig our Democracy: Let's end gerrymandering, improve access to the ballot, end the legislator-to-lobbyist pipeline caused by term-limits, and reduce the role of money in politics.

...I am running for office because I believe in a Michigan that invest in people. I fundamentally believe that government has the power to do good in the world when good people power the government. Coming from a family of teachers, I have work to continue fighting for education for today and tomorrow, lowering class size, and reducing student debt.

As a small business owner, I know we need to do more to raise wages, make sure economic improvements reach the pockets of working people, and end giveaways to the most profitable companies. Finally, we need to protect the environment, promote social justice, and unrig our democracy. There's a lot of work to do, but together we can get it done.

This morning, Daniel Strauss, reporting for Politico wrote that Republican legislators in Wisconsin and Michigan have reignited Democratic energy since the midterms in two narrow Trump states, their power grab pouring gas on the resistance. "Republican efforts to weaken incoming Democratic governors in Michigan and Wisconsin," he asserted, "have reignited the grass-roots fervor that flipped both states in November, turning the typically sleepy post-election period into a key organizing moment ahead of the 2020 presidential election."

Liberal groups in both states are organizing demonstrations filling the capitols in both states to oppose GOP legislators stripping power from the governor’s offices before new Democratic governors take their posts. Local chapters of Indivisible, the national “resistance” group founded after President Donald Trump’s 2016 win, reactivated their members weeks after the election to protest the legislation, while MoveOn.org has texted members in key Wisconsin state Senate districts urging them to contact Republican politicians to complain. And Wisconsin Gov.-elect Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Democratic Party have raked in money with online fundraising appeals highlighting the fight over the past two weeks.

...The furor is a “great bridge for the energy from the midterm into Trump reelect,” said Tom Russell, a veteran Democratic strategist in Wisconsin. “I think it’s going to be a very good tool for Democrats to keep the energy up, keep people focused, keep people engaged.”

In Wisconsin, the controversy stems from legislation in the final days of Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s term to limit the window for early voting and weaken Gov.-elect Tony Evers, the Democrat who bested Walker in November. In Michigan, Republican lawmakers are trying to reduce the power of the governor, the attorney general and the secretary of state. The GOP had controlled the latter two for over a decade and the governorship for eight years, but Democrats won all three offices in this year’s midterms.

Democrats also won the majority of votes cast for state legislature in both states. But they will still be in the minority next year in both legislative chambers in Michigan and Wisconsin, where Republicans drew the political maps at the beginning of the decade. That means Democrats won’t have the numbers in 2019 to reverse legislation passed in the waning days of this year.

...The GOP’s legislative actions could stay in the news for a while; the National Democratic Redistricting Committee is monitoring both states and considering whether it could take legal action if Walker and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder sign the measures into law. Protracted court battles could spur the activists for months, up to or potentially through a state Supreme Court race early next year-- the type of off-year race at which the Republican Party excelled during the Walker years.

“Progressives have to defend a Supreme Court seat in April of 2019-- this will help them do that,” said Scot Ross, the executive director of One Wisconsin Now, a liberal outside group.

Liberals will then have the chance to take the majority on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court in 2020, as Trump tries to keep the state in his column in the fall’s presidential race.

In Michigan, there’s also more than executive power at stake for the new governor. State legislative Republicans have also taken steps to undo initiatives to raise the state minimum wage and paid sick leave in the state.

Both initiatives were set to be on the ballot this November before Republican lawmakers short-circuited the process by passing the language-- before altering it during the lame-duck legislative session.

“Democrats and progressives both in and out of the party are really concerned about this and they’re really energized by it,” said Liano Sharon, a Democratic organizer in Michigan.

Democratic Gov.-elect Gretchen Whitmer has condemned the lawmakers, while promoting hopes of bipartisanship.

“This legislation needlessly divides and won’t deliver results. It won’t clean up our water. It won’t improve literacy or fix the roads. Instead of working to undermine the very leaders Michigan residents have chosen to get this job done, let's instead respect the voices of voters who have spoken clearly and decisively, and get back to building bridges.”

Whitmer’s power may be limited during her first years in office thanks to Republicans’ enduring legislative majorities. But in the meantime, activists could push to put new liberal initiatives on the ballot, including a more aggressive minimum wage hike. It could even push them toward contention to flip a state legislative chamber or more in 2020.

“I think the Democrats were energized in November, and now they’re going crazy,” said Barry Goodman, a Democratic National Committeeman from Michigan.

With Paul Clements Knocked Out Of The MI-06 House Race, What's A Progressive To Do In The August 7th Primary?

Michigan's 6th district is a swing district that Obama won against McCain (53-45%) and that Trump won against Hillary (51-43%). The PVI is R+4. And the incumbent is Republican hereditary multimillionaire and Trump stooge Fred Upton. In the 2016 primary Bernie beat Hillary in the district (and got more votes in the primary than Trump did). Perhaps voters want a progressive to go up against Upton. Is that so hard to figure out? Sure, for the Democratic establishment it is. They want George Franklin, a fat cat lobbyist-- a lobbyist who has helped finance Fred Upton's campaigns for cycle after cycle-- as the candidate. Franklin has no values except money and has no place in a Democratic primary. Blue America's candidate Paul Clements was eliminated after a suspicious establishment challenge to his petitions. He had submitted well over the required number of signatures but the Bureau of Elections found him 9 valid signatures short. He took the Bureau to court, lost and had no choice but to leave the race.

He did have a choice, though, about who to urge his followers to support. As he said, his campaign has "always been about advancing economic equality and prosperity, equal rights, democracy, and environmental sustainability... It is critical that we win a Democratic majority in Congress in November, and not just a majority, but one committed to the vision and task of building governance that works for all our people. I believe that Matt Longjohn is now the candidate for Michigan’s 6th district with the clearest commitment to this vision and task and the strongest campaign to defeat the incumbent. I have only known Matt for a little over a year, but in the course of the campaign, while formally opponents, we have built a friendship based on common values. I am particularly impressed by how he has contributed to improving the health of millions of Americans through a career dedicated to strengthening our public health institutions. This experience provides a foundation for promoting, as well as universal healthcare, progressive reforms across our federal government."

I asked Paul to give us a deeper insight into why he endorsed Matt Longjohn and today he wrote this guest post:

Matt Longjohn for MI-06
by Paul Clements

When the judge decided against me and I was knocked out of the race, there was no question in my mind. I endorsed Matt Longjohn.

Campaigning for a year alongside five other candidates for the Democratic nomination, you get to know them pretty well. I count them all my friends, and each would represent the people of southwest Michigan far better than Congressman Upton has done. But Matt has the best chance to win, and he will be the best in Congress.

Matt is a true progressive. He understands that increasing economic inequality driven largely by money in politics is evidence of our democracy failing and it threatens to kill it. As chief medical officer for the YMCA Matt’s focus has been public health, such as improving management of diabetes and cancer, reducing childhood obesity, and improving gun safety. He is a strong advocate for universal, affordable health care, and with Upton having personally pushed the disastrous Republic health care bill through the House last May, this will be central to winning in November. More than this, the perspective and skills Matt has built as a leading public health advocate give him a depth that his remaining challengers lack. When Matt looks at issues such as employment, education, housing, or criminal justice, his paradigm links concern for the least advantaged with an informed commitment to smart policy. And his experience prepares him to use the powers of the office actually to achieve smart policy.

Matt understands climate change and Palestine, and the misguided priorities that our military spending represents. Martin Luther King says injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and Matt appreciates that we are caught in an “inescapable network of mutuality.” He appreciates the history of oppression of blacks and native Americans, immigrants and LGBT persons, and women, and struggle for equality that is likely to intensify under our Supreme Court. He understands that democratic equality must be grounded in equal opportunity, and this requires not only building economic foundations, such as through job training and moving people from incarceration to employment, but also correcting historic disadvantages.

The utter disaster of the Trump administration on top of years of Congressional malfunction means we need a Congress that is not only well grounded but also extraordinarily active. I believe that Matt has what it takes to be a leader in this kind of Congress.

As of the March 31 FEC report, this was the financial state of the race:

Blue America hasn't made a decision on this one yet. We're still looking at all the remaining candidates.

What Will Make People Decide Who To Vote For In November?

There are a bunch of run-of the-mill Democrats and semi-Democrats running in Michigan this year, including for the district in the southwest corner of the state (MI-06) held by Fred Upton. One-- sleazy lobbyist George Franklin-- is especially bad. He's been helping finance Upton against Democrats for years. And now he wants to run against him. What a joke! I can see the GOP ads now: "I was for him before I was against him." And he was. Why? What changed, Georgie?

Upton is real bad but but Franklin is-- at best-- the lesser of two evils. The best Democrat in the race is Paul Clements. This week he told his supporters that "despite hearing that we're in a prolonged economic recovery, over half of all Americans are economically insecure-- unable to maintain long-term savings, fearful of emergencies they can't afford, unable to relax even a little. Whether you're below or above the poverty line, economic insecurity is unhealthy, exhausting, and bad for our democracy. You can read my entire economic agenda here, but I want to focus on three things I will do in Congress to reduce economic insecurity in America.

1. Medicare for All

Canada's health care system has not only produced longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the United States; Canadians also know they won't go broke if they get sick. In Congress, I will push for, support, and vote for Medicare for all.

2. Increased Wages

Americans should be able to support their families by working one job. I will work to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour or, for now, half the regional median ($12 an hour in Michigan).

3. Postal Banking

Millions of Americans lack access to affordable banking and financial services, and that means it costs more money to be poor. In Congress I will support the revival of United States Post Office banking, facilitating basic banking services and low-interest loans that can help working class Americans.

There are 6 counties in MI-06. Obama won all 6 both times he ran. Then in 2016 Bernie beat Hillary in 5 counties. And then along comes Trumpanzee-- he won all the counties but one in the district too and beat Hillary district-wide 51.3% to 42.9%, a district Bernie won in the primaries and Obama won against McCain. Here was primary day, 2016

• Allegan County:

• Bernie- 5,545
• Hillary- 3,489
• Trump- 5,327

• Berrien County:

• Bernie- 5,942
• Hillary- 6,546
• Trump- 7,817

• Cass County:

• Bernie- 1,683
• Hillary- 1,657
• Trump- 2,859

• Kalamazoo County:

• Bernie- 20,146
• Hillary- 12,593
• Trump- 8,655

• St. Joseph County:

• Bernie- 2,219
• Hillary- 1,382
• Trump- 2,655

• Van Buren County:

• Bernie- 3,656
• Hillary- 2,484
• Trump- 3,287

Clements is the candidate running on a Bernie-like platform, but the Democratic Party establishment, of course, prefers the lobbyist, Franklin. As of March 31, Franklin had raised $534,743 (the source of $100,000 of it unaccounted for) while Clements had raised $257,757.

Meanwhile, as Clements pushes a cutting edge progressive economic message for working families, Trump and Ryan-- with Upton firmly in tow-- are still trying to chip away at the social safety net-- including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Remember the tax scam that lined the pockets of multimillionaires and billionaires, while doing nothing for the rest of us? They always had the idea of making the rest if us pay for it. Yesterday, the New York Times asserted that "Trump, spurred on by conservatives who want him to slash safety net programs, unveiled on Thursday a plan to overhaul the federal government that could have a profound effect on millions of poor and working-class Americans. Produced over the last year by Mr. Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, it would reshuffle social welfare programs in a way that would make them easier to cut, scale back or restructure. Among the most consequential ideas is a proposal to shift the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a subsistence benefit that provides aid to 42 million poor and working Americans, from the Agriculture Department to a new mega-agency that would have 'welfare' in its title-- a term Mr. Trump uses as a pejorative catchall for most government benefit programs." A couple of days ago, writing for the Washington Post, Erica Werner warned that the budget Trump and Ryan (and Upton) purposely exploded will be balanced on the backs on cuts to Medicare and other programs Trump vowed over and over to not touch while he was campaigning.

[T]he budget serves as an expression of Republicans’ priorities at a time of rapidly rising deficits and debt. Although the nation’s growing indebtedness has been exacerbated by the GOP’s own policy decisions-- including the new tax law, which most analyses say will add at least $1 trillion to the debt-- Republicans on the Budget Committee said they felt a responsibility to put the nation on a sounder fiscal trajectory.

“The time is now for our Congress to step up and confront the biggest challenge to our society,” said House Budget Chairman Steve Womack (R-AR). “There is not a bigger enemy on the domestic side than the debt and deficits.”

The Republican budget confronts this enemy by taking a whack at entitlement spending. Lawmakers of both parties agree that spending that is not subject to Congress’s annual appropriations process is becoming unsustainable. But Trump has largely taken it off the table by refusing to touch Medicare or Social Security, and Democrats have little interest in addressing it except as part of a larger deal including tax increases-- the sort of “Grand Bargain” that eluded President Barack Obama.

The House Republican budget, titled “A Brighter American Future,” would remake Medicare by giving seniors the option of enrolling in private plans that compete with traditional Medicare, a system of competition designed to keep costs down but dismissed by critics as an effort to privatize the program. Along with other changes, the budget proposes to squeeze $537 billion out of Medicare over the next decade.

The budget would transform Medicaid, the federal-state health-care program for the poor, by limiting per capita payments or allowing states to turn it into a block-grant program-- the same approach House Republicans took in their legislation that passed last year to repeal the Affordable Care Act (the repeal effort died in the Senate, but the GOP budget assumes that the repeal takes place).  It also proposes adding work requirements for certain adults enrolled in Medicaid. Changes to Medicaid and other health programs would account for $1.5 trillion in savings.

Social Security comes in for more modest cuts of $4 billion over the decade, which the budget projects could be reached by eliminating concurrent receipt of unemployment benefits and Social Security disability insurance.

The budget also proposes a number of other cost-saving measures, some of which could prove unpopular if implemented, such as adding more work requirements for food-stamp and welfare recipients and requiring federal employees-- including members of Congress-- to contribute more to their retirement plans. It assumes repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act that regulated banks after the financial crisis 10 years ago, something Congress recently rejected in passing a banking bill into law that softened some of the key provisions of Dodd-Frank but left its overall structures intact. And the budget proposes $230 billion in cuts from education and training programs, including consolidating student loan programs and reducing Pell Grant awards.

The budget also relies on rosy economic-growth projections and proposes using a budgetary mechanism to require other congressional committees to come up with a combined $302 billion in unspecified deficit reduction.

Overall, the partisan proposal is reminiscent of the budget released in 2011 by now-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), who was then the Budget Committee chairman and advanced a bold proposal attacking entitlements, slashing spending-- and creating lines of attack for Democrats once Ryan became Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate on the GOP ticket the following year.

How is this going to go over with voters? Latest Monmouth poll shows the tax scam is losing more and more support: "34% of the public approve of the tax reform plan passed by Congress last December and 41% disapprove. Another 24% are not sure how they feel.  These results have shifted in the past six weeks. Approval is down 6 points from 40% in late April and disapproval is down 3 points from 44%. The number who give no opinion on the plan has risen 8 points from 16%.  Polls earlier this year had shown a more evenly divided public-- 41% approve to 42% disapprove in March and 44% approve to 44% disapprove in January-- with a smaller percentage of undecided opinion. Public opinion on the Republican lawmakers’ signature accomplishment has never been positive, but potentially growing uncertainty about how American taxpayers will be affected does not seem to be helping the GOP’s prospects for November,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute."

The chair of the House Budget Committee is Steve Womack (R-A). He's in a safe Republican seat that Trump won with 62%. The PVI is R+19, the worst and most backward district in Arkansas, so he doesn't care... but his local paper, the Arkansas Times castigated him for the betrayal. Commenting on his dishonest press conference touting the bonus "A Brighter Future," they reported that "He didn't mention that rising deficits were made worse by the tax cut for the rich he supported. Nor did he mention the pain his budget will cause millions of Americans.

With the nation's attention rightly fixated on President Donald Trump's horrific treatment of immigrant children, House Republicans on Tuesday quietly unveiled their 2019 budget proposal that calls for $537 billion in cuts to Medicare, $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, and four billion in cuts to Social Security over the next decade in an effort to pay for their deficit-exploding tax cuts for the wealthy.

"It's morally bankrupt, patently absurd, and grossly un-American," the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires said of the GOP's budget proposal, which calls for $5.4 trillion in spending cuts from major domestic programs.

Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), argued in a statement that the Republican proposal demonstrates clearly shows the "House majority's fiscal priorities haven't changed.

"It’s easy to become numb to the harshness of these budgets and to brush aside their policy implications based on the assumption (likely correct) that few, if any, of these policies will be enacted this year," Greenstein said. "But this budget reflects where many congressional leaders—and the president—would like to take the country if they get the opportunity to enact these measures in the years ahead. Rather than help more families have a shot at the American dream, it asks the most from those who have the least, and it would leave our nation less prepared for the economic and other challenges that lie ahead."

Progressives have been warning for months about the GOP's plan to axe crucial safety net programs following the passage of its deeply unpopular $1.5 trillion tax bill, which has sparked a boom of corporate stock buybacks while doing little to nothing for most American workers.

"Each GOP budget is more fraudulent than the last," Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote on Tuesday. "We know what they stand for: tax cuts paid for with healthcare cuts."

In addition to proposing devastating safety net cuts, the House GOP budget also calls for partial privatization of Medicare and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a move that would throw tens of millions off their health insurance.

Josh Mahony is the Democrat running against Womack this cycle. He noted that "Womack has forgotten the very people he represents. Cuts to these programs will seriously affect Arkansas families. With cuts to education, healthcare, and Social Security, this bill shows the true priorities of Republicans and it’s not to hard-working Arkansans."

My guess if that the good folks in Arkadelphia, Hope and Texarkana noticed that the person Trump was shooting on 5th Avenue was their kid, they'd vote for him anyway. (Yes indeed; these are the ones.) And they're the ones who were probably offended and totally pissed off yesterday when Ted Lieu played this on the floor of the House of Representatives:

Are Trump's Concentration Camps For Immigrant Children Going To Further Damage The GOP Brand?

Meet Jesuit priest, James Martin author of Jesus: A Pilgrimage and Building a Bridge. He's also an editor of the Jesuit magazine America. You may know him for his appearances on Colbert's show. He has a lot of influence in the Vatican and it's worth reading between the lines in the tweet storm above. It's also worth reading Barbara Bush's Washington Post OpEd from Sunday night, Laura Bush: Separating children from their parents at the border ‘breaks my heart’. "I live in a border state," she wrote. "I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart. Our government should not be in the business of warehousing children in converted box stores or making plans to place them in tent cities in the desert outside of El Paso. These images are eerily reminiscent of the Japanese American internment camps of World War II, now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history... "Americans pride ourselves on being a moral nation, on being the nation that sends humanitarian relief to places devastated by natural disasters or famine or war. We pride ourselves on believing that people should be seen for the content of their character, not the color of their skin. We pride ourselves on acceptance. If we are truly that country, then it is our obligation to reunite these detained children with their parents-- and to stop separating parents and children in the first place."

A few hours earlier White House communications director Stephanie Grisham announced that Melania "hates to see children separated from their families and hopes both sides of the aisle can finally come together to achieve successful immigration reform. She believes we need to be a country that follows all laws, but also a country that governs with heart." Both sides of the aisle? Really. Her husband, Señor Trumpanzee, keeps asserting the child stealing and incarceration was forced on him by some imaginary Democratic law, instead of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions' "zero tolerance" policy meant to "send a message."

[O]ver the weekend his secretary of homeland security, Kirstjen Nielsen, flat-out denied that such a policy existed.

"We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period," Nielsen tweeted.

But the Department of Homeland Security does separate children from their parents at the border, and it just put out a press release about it on Friday, explaining its new "zero tolerance" policy for border crossers. And why have they been building concentration camps (that are now filled with children)? And why is Trump's policy tearing his own party apart?

Yesterday AP reported that Trump's ugly and inhumane policy "is also starting to divide Republicans and their allies as Democrats turn up the pressure." Susan Collins (R-ME) has signaled she won't work with the Democrats to fix anything but-- always trying to have it both ways-- said "What the administration has decided to do is to separate children from their parents to try to send a message that if you cross the border with children, your children are going to be ripped away from you. That’s traumatizing to the children who are innocent victims, and it is contrary to our values in this country."

Former Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci said in a weekend interview that the child separation interview could be dangerous for Trump. He said the president “should be immediately fixing this problem.”

“This is a fuse that has been lit,” he said. “The president is going to get hurt by this issue if it stays out there very, very long.”

The signs of splintering of GOP support come after longtime Trump ally, the Rev. Franklin Graham, called the policy “disgraceful.” Several religious groups, including some conservative ones, have pushed to stop the practice of separating immigrant children from their parents.

Trumpanzee is meeting with House Republicans today and said he'll sign whichever bill Ryan gets through Congress, a vaguely conservative bill or the one the neo-Nazis from the Freedom Caucus and the crackpot Trumpists are pushing.

The Republicans are in a bit of a pickle here. A new poll from Ipsos shows that most Americans oppose Trump's policy, the Republican base are just fine with it. 27% of Americans-- normal people plus Republicans-- like the child grabbing policy. 46% of Republicans favor and just 32% disagree. Among normal people, there's a very different story. Just 14% of Democrats and 29% of Independents support support what Trump is doing. Congressional Republicans are feeling the pressure-- especially from independent voters who they have to win over to be reelected.

As Caitlin Owens explained at Axios, Ryan is allowing a vote on 2 different immigration bills this week: one written by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte that the neo-Nazis and other Trumpists favor and a sort of compromise bill that's still hideous but that mainstream conservatives like a little more than what Goodlatte came up with. It's not likely either will pass. Ryan "agreed to do this to avoid the worst-case scenario of moderates filing a discharge petition-- a way of forcing votes on bills they don’t like-- which could have resulted in passage of the Democrats’ preferred immigration bill... Even the optimists say that the compromise bill’s chance of passage is probably in Trump’s hands: He alone has the power to pressure reluctant House Republicans into voting for it. (Democrats are unlikely to support it.)"

Today the Economist suggested that people who really want to raise the stakes in this scriptural to-and-fro might consider turning to a verse in Matthew’s Gospel which warns of the dire consequences that may befall anybody who does spiritual harm to children: "If anyone causes one of these little ones…to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

Paul Clements, the progressive running for the southwest Michigan congressional seat occupied by Trump enabler Fred Upton, put it like this: "We are a nation of immigrants. So why are we watching ICE separate families and detain human beings in inhumane conditions? Why are we watching them put frightened children in mass detention for months at a time?

This isn't how we ought to respond to immigrants and refugees. Regardless of your political leanings, human beings shouldn't be treated this way--especially when there's a better way:

• A pathway to citizenship for immigrants who have not committed crimes after entering the United States
• Permanent DACA protections
• Compassionate and sound refugee policies following international human rights standards and emphasizing cooperation with other nations

We need elected leaders in Congress who will stand up and say no to this inhumanity, and demand accountability and decency."

I wonder how long it's going to take Republican rubber stamps too scared of Trump to do their jobs to get this message. American voters sure have. Now it's just a matter of how many Republican congressmen are going to be looking for jobs on K Street in 2019. Lobbyists already love old-timers like Upton but what are Trump enablers like Steve Russell in Oklahoma, Ron Estes in Kansas, Don Bacon in Nebraska and Dan Donovan in New York going to do to make a living?

This reporting won't make Trumpanzee happy if someone reads it to him: GOP Governor Charlie Baker said Monday that "members of the Massachusetts National Guard will not be sent to the Mexican border to assist the Trump administration in what the Republican called its 'cruel and inhumane' policy separating migrant children from their families."

A few Republicans are starting to criticize Trump. Florida governor Rick Scott, in a tough Senate race, told the Tampa Bay Times on Monday that "What the country is witnessing right now is the byproduct of the many years of bi-partisan inaction and failure from our federal government. Let me be clear-- I do not favor separating families. Washington is to blame for this by being all talk and no action, and the solution is to secure the border. Anyone seeking to enter our country illegally needs to be sent back, with the exception of those who are truly seeking asylum from an oppressive regime." A Miami area Republican congressman, Mario Diaz-Balart, went a little further, though, like Scott, was too frightened to mention Señor T: "It is totally unacceptable, for any reason, to purposely separate minor children from their parents. Any and every other option should be implemented in order to not separate minors from their parents, which I believe is unconscionable. We cannot allow for this to continue happening, and it must stop. I continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that the provision included in this week's immigration bill puts an end to this cruel practice."

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) did mention Trump by name though: "President Trump could stop this policy with a phone call." Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse (R): "Family separation is wicked. It is harmful to kids and absolutely should NOT be the default U.S. policy. Americans are better than this... The administration’s decision to separate families is a new, discretionary choice. Anyone saying that their hands are tied or that the only conceivable way to fix the problem of catch-and-release is to rip families apart is flat wrong. There are other options available to them. The other options are all messy (given that some overly prescriptive judges have limited their administrative options), but there are ways to address this that are less bad than the policy of family separation they’ve chosen. There are many senior folks in the administration who hate this policy, and who want to do something better. But some in the administration have decided that this cruel policy increases their legislative leverage. This is wrong. Americans do not take children hostage, period... The President should immediately end this family separation policy."

UPDATE: Who's Taking Care Of The Kidnapped Kids?

Guys like Deputy Sheriff Jose Nunez, a 10-year veteran of the Bexar County Sheriff's Department. According to the Dallas Morning News Nunez (not Devin Nunes this time) sexually assaulted a 4-year-old girl and threatened the victim's mother into staying quiet about the assaults.

Sheriff Javier Salazar said the girl had been assaulted multiple times over the course of several months. The mother is an undocumented immigrants and Nunez said she'd be deported if she told anyone.

Democratic Candidates Are Advocating A Progressive Agenda And Are Happy To Make The Election A Referendum On Trump

GOP candidates rallying behind Trump read an ABC News headline yesterday. Some are, of course... and some aren't. The line that interested me most, though, was "Republicans appear far more comfortable touting Trump’s leadership than Democrats do arguing against it." Again, some are and some aren't-- on both ends of that statement. More than a few Republicans are leaving Congress altogether rather than even attempt defending Trump, a compulsive liar-- on any level. As for Democrats not feeling comfortable arguing against Trump's leadership... what sort of Democrats are we talking about? I asked some of the savviest Democrats I know about their posture towards Trump.

Alan Grayson is running on his record when he was in Congress, as he works to take back his Orlando area House seat, held my a centrist Democrat with no record at all. Grayson was able to pass more legislation than any other member of Congress and he hopes to continue doing that when he's back in Congress... that and impeaching Trump. "Republicans," he told me, "started campaigning against Obama from the day that he was elected, with no basis whatsoever. As I said once on the Floor of the House, if Obama had a BLT sandwich, the Republicans would try to ban bacon. More recently, however, mysterious forces pushed the most unpopular presidential candidate in the history of polling across the finish line, with 54% of Americans voting against him even before we saw how miserable he is as President. Yet somehow, certain Democrats think that we should lay off him. Those are the Democrats who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

 Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has the highest ProgressivePunch score in Congress-- yes, he's #1, he's #1-- and he's the organizer of Democracy Summer, a program educating high school and college students on the dynamics of political change and deploying them to swing districts. "Our people," he told me today, "are sick of Donald Trump and the depraved corruption of this administration. From Virginia to New Jersey to Alabama to western Pennsylvania to Colorado, we’re winning elections across America because we’re focused on restoring government to the people. But there’s no popular demand for wallowing in Trump’s crimes against the common good. Our people want hope for progressive renewal and strategies for practical change to take America back from the abyss."

Saira Rao is running for the Denver seat occupied by middle of the road Democrat Diana DeGette. They have very different approaches. DeGette is basically a centrist looking out for her own career. Rao wants to make Denver-- and the country-- better. "Why," she asked, "isn't white supremacy an impeachable offense? We have a President who calls Nazis and members of the KKK 'very fine people,' countries with people of color 'shitholes' and undocumented immigrants 'animals.' Hitler used that word to describe Jewish people.  Democrats in Congress continue to tweet about Trump but when it came down to it, they voted to table the vote on impeachment. If more brown and black people were in Congress, we'd move to impeach him. White supremacy is life and death for us." It doesn't sound to me that with Jamie or Saira is having a tough time questioning Trump's leadership.

Before Levi Tillemann (CO-06) takes on Trump-adverse Republican, Mike Coffman, he has to beat a corrupt right-wing Democrat. Levi is sticking to running on his own progressive agenda. He told us today that as he's "spoken to thousands of voters around Colorado, it's clear that people want accountability in Washington, and that means impeaching Trump. He is unfit to be president and voters know it. Voters know that I'm fighting for universal healthcare, getting corporate influence out of politics, and protecting kids from guns, and along with that, they know that I'm fighting to impeach Trump."

Yes, people can walk and chew gum at the same time. Paul Clements (MI-06) is working to get through a gaggle of conservative Democrats before facing Trump rubber stamp Fred Upton, like Tillemann, he's fighting for progressive issues and holding Trump accountable: "Trump," he told me without flinching, "is the greatest threat to American democracy in my lifetime. He seems to think the separation of powers does not apply to him, that our judges and law enforcement officials should promote his political and personal agendas. His racism, lies, disrespect, and encouragement of violence undermine the civic friendship that democracy depends on. His economic policies continue our slide into oligarchy. His foreign policy supports authoritarians. His environmental policies threaten our common future. In world-historical terms this is a moment when we face an urgent call for real democratic leadership.

Of course, right wing extremists who are counting on the GOP base to turn out and not thinking about independent voters to get them over the finish line are adhering to Trump in a big way. But more Republicans are worried about Trump's toxicity with independents. If you're some crackpot in a crackpot district like Matt Gaetz (FL), Paul Gosar (AZ), Hal Rogers (KY), Doug Collins (GA), Phil Roe (TN), Liz Cheney (WY), Michael Conaway (TX) or Rob Aderholt (AZ) you can be reelected without one independent voter-- and without one person with a 3-digit IQ.

Trump's visit Tuesday to Nashville highlights the unmistakable trend: There is virtually no room between Trump and the Senate candidates hoping to maintain his Republican majority this year. And Republicans appear far more comfortable touting Trump’s leadership than Democrats do arguing against it.

Trump claimed that his sway drove Sen. Bob Corker from running for another term in Tennessee, and kept him out when he flirted with returning after all.

In his place is Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who faces only nominal opposition in August’s GOP primary. She is set to join nominees who have already emerged out of states including Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, by winning fights that centered on who the most staunch Trump loyalist would be.

It’s also telling that while Trump is primed to attack the likely Democratic candidate in Tennessee, Phil Bredesen, Bredesen is already on TV promising to "separate the message from the messenger."

"Look, I’m not running against Donald Trump," Bredesen said in a recent campaign ad.

Interesting race there in Tennessee. Bredesen has always run Republican-lite campaigns and his ability to be elected and re-elected governor of the deep red state has a lot to do with his innate conservatism and his ability to appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. He's consistently been running ahead of Blackburn in all polls because voters see her as an extremist and him as more mainstream. Progressives who vote for him will be voting against Trump in a referendum and for Bredesen as the lesser of two evils.

Katie Porter (CA-45), on the other hand, is running hard for an Orange County seat occupied by a total Trump rubber stamp, Mimi Walters. This morning she told us that she's "running to stand up to Trump's reckless and hateful agenda. Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have endorsed our campaign because they know that in Congress, I will hold Donald Trump and powerful special interests accountable, fight for Medicare for All, for common sense gun reform, and always protect a woman’s right to choose."

Sam Jammal (CA-39) works his disdain for Trump into the reasons that impelled him to run. "We are," he told me, "running a campaign focused on our values and the middle class-- two things Trump stands against. The 39th district is a diverse community that is welcoming. This is why the Fullerton City Council rejected attempts to join the sanctuary city lawsuit. We also have a lot of families who are working hard to get by. Trump's tax reform bill is an attack on these families. 80% of our homeowners will be hit by the lower mortgage interest deductions. Thousands of individuals have pre-existing conditions and are at risk of Trump taking away their health care. And the new $1.5 trillion deficit we now face thanks to Trump's tax reform means our schools have less money for educating our students and making sure our schools are safe places to learn. There is no neutrality in Trump's direct attacks on California families. We have to stand up and push back against not only his division, but the very real attacks on our economy."

Let's close this out with a few words-- and some excellent advise for candidates-- from the West Coast Regional Vice Chair of the DCCC, Congressman Ted Lieu. "Congressional Republicans," he told us, "are stuck between a Trump and a hard place. As they prepare to go before voters later this year, many Republicans find themselves in the unenviable position of having to defend the constant barrage of insanity that comes from the White House. Some will lean into Trump in the hopes that his popularity with a certain segment of the Republican base will save them (though there aren't really any great examples of his popularity transferring to other candidates). Others will try to walk the tightrope of finding common ground when possible and creating distance when Trump goes off the rails, and some will reject him altogether. None of those are great options when you are running a tough reelection campaign. In a world where many prominent conservatives (Bill Kristol, Mitt Romney, George Will, Jeff Flake, John McCain, Charlie Dent to name a few) have been critical of the President, all Democrats should feel free to point out the harm Trump has caused and will continue to cause to our great nation. In addition, the first rule of elections is you have to energize your base. If you don't do that, it becomes very difficult to win."

It May Be Difficult Not To, But Trump Shouldn't Be Obsessed Over-- Leave That To Mueller's Team

Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was on Meet the Press yesterday dancing on the head of a pin held up to the camera by Chuck Todd: "I do hope that somebody runs on the Republican side other than the president, if nothing else than simply to remind Republicans what conservatism is and what Republicans have traditionally stood for." Traditionally.

Meanwhile Marco Rubio was on This week demonstrating once again that he is always open to voting against Trump's trespasses against decency, the constitution and humanity-- until Trumpanzee barks at him. Little Marco votes with Señor T 97.2% of the time. Only 7 Senate Republicans have adhered more faithfully to Trump's vile and unconstitutional agenda-- and all of them have adhesion scores of 97.3%. Rubio sounded like a ruffled toy poodle when he told Martha Raddatz that he had seen "no evidence" of Trump's whacked out Spy-Gate charges and that the FBI was focussing on "individuals with a history of links to Russia that were concerning... As far as what I have seen to date, it appears that there was an investigation not of the campaign, but of certain individuals who have a history that we should be suspicious of, that predate the presidential campaign of 2015, 2016. And when individuals like that are in the orbit of a major political campaign in America, the FBI, who is in charge of counterintelligence investigations, should look at people like that," said Rubio, a puffed up member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

And Trump wasn't on TV. He never goes on any programs where he could be asked questions. Instead he was locked in his nursery, diapers unchanged and reeking of shit, tweeting up a storm of nonsense.

Whose reputation is in tatters? Rudy Giuliani's more than anyone's. Yesterday he was on CNN's State of the Union embarrassing himself that Mueller's investigation is part of Trumpanzee's Spy-Gate fantasy. Politico offered an alternative interpretation of who twittery Trump was referring to as having their reputations in tatters.

Trump has repeatedly called special counsel Mueller's probe a "witch hunt," a charge that in recent weeks has been coupled with renewed calls from his allies to end the probe soon. Some House lawmakers have gone even further, arguing that reports stating a confidential FBI informant met with Trump campaign officials means the investigation is irrevocably tainted.

"With Spies, or “Informants” as the Democrats like to call them because it sounds less sinister (but it’s not), all over my campaign," Trump wrote on Twitter on Saturday, "even from a very early date, why didn’t the crooked highest levels of the FBI or “Justice” contact me to tell me of the phony Russia problem?"

It's unclear who Trump is referring to when he says individuals have "went back home in tatters." A score of former campaign aides have reportedly met with Mueller's team along with congressional investigators-- racking up significant legal bills in the process.

Mueller has so far secured at least five guilty pleas, including from former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, and former campaign aide Rick Gates. Papadopoulos' conversation with an Australian diplomat about getting "dirt" on Hillary Clinton has been reported to be the impetus for the FBI's original investigation into the president's campaign that has become the Mueller probe.

The president has attacked the investigation throughout Memorial Day weekend, returning to some of his favorite line of attacks including the political affiliations of Mueller's team and claiming that the question of Russian interference was made up by Democrats after losing the 2016 campaign. Some of those attacks were echoed by attorney Rudy Giuliani, who told CNN’s Dana Bash on State of the Union that there was no justification for the Mueller probe to continue.

What Trump doesn't want is for Democrats and independents to ignore his tomfoolery and outrageous viciousness and talk directly to voters about what voters are interested in talking about. Randy Bryce spent the weekend, not obsessing over Trump's childish and incoherent tweets but on staying focussed on his own message:

I've worked minimum wage jobs in the past, so I know what every other working person knows: no one can survive on $7.25.

It's been eleven years since Congress raised the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour-- but it's still not enough. Everyone, no matter what they do for work, deserves dignity and no one who works full time should ever be forced to live in poverty. Period.

That's why I'm fighting to raise the minimum wage to $15 and support all working families.

Working folks all across the country are struggling just to make ends meet while multi-millionaire, lifelong politicians are busy putting corporations and special interests first in Washington, D.C.

Just last September, Paul Ryan was asked at a New York Times Times Talk, "What's the minimum wage in Wisconsin?" And guess what? He didn't know-- someone had to shout out the answer from the audience. And Bryan Steil, Ryan's handpicked replacement and a corporate lawyer who helped outsource jobs, will only carry on Ryan's tradition of ignoring the problems working people face.

It's long past time for working families like mine to have someone fighting for us in Congress. So when I get to Congress, that's what I'm going to do. Fight. For all of us.

Another Blue America-endorsed congressional candidate, Paul Clements, who didn't mention Trump in his Memorial Day message to supporters, Paul Clements (MI-06), instead talked about gun sanity instead. "Of course, I was frustrated hearing about the middle school shooting in Indiana yesterday," he wrote. We all grow more frustrated with each occasion of tragic news in our nation's schools--and in other public spaces that are supposed to be safe. As I posted on Twitter yesterday, although my thoughts and prayers are with those affected by the shooting, I agree with our nation's rising and energetic students: thoughts and prayers are not enough. When I get to Congress, I will stand up to the National Rifle Association. The NRA's extremism has created unhealthy political conversations and dangerous public spaces. Nobody is is trying to take all our guns away. Universal background checks and limiting military-style weapons are common-sense safety measures I will fight for in Congress... Please join me in rejecting the NRA and taking real action to protect our nation's schools and other public spaces."

And yesterday Jared Golden sent an e-mail telling his supporters why they wouldn't be hearing from his campaign today-- and it had decidedly NOTHING whatsoever to do with Trump. "I wanted to let you know that you won't be hearing from me or my campaign at all tomorrow-- in person, on the phone, or online. I won't be actively campaigning on Memorial Day. It's a day to remember, and to give thanks. To all of the men and women who have given their lives in service to America, and to their family members, thank you with all my heart. Tomorrow, I'll be thinking about and honoring the men I served with who didn't come home with us, and praying for their families. We won't ever forget your sacrifice."

The Democratic Party-- Which Way?

Last month, Justice Democrats commissioned an important report, The Future of the Party-- A Progressive Vision For A Populist Democrat Party by Sean McElwee. You should read the whole thing at that link. The short version: "The Democratic Party is at a crossroads as the 2018 election approaches."

Generic ballot polling, historical trends, and recent special elections suggest that Democrats will perform well in November, likely enough to take back the House of Representatives.

But which Democratic Party will take the House?

Will it be a Democratic Party ready to combat plutocracy, white supremacy, and militarism, or a Democratic Party ready to be complicit in continuing the policies that have harmed so many Americans? While pundits debate the future of the party, the Democratic Party’s base is united around policies that would create a fair economy for all, racial justice, and gender equality. Still, many in the party leadership and wealthy donor class express concerns that such policies will endanger the party.

The report shows that a pivot toward the "center" is poison with the Democratic primary electorate, that marginal voters and nonvoters support key progressive policies and could form a durable base for the Democratic Party and that many Democratic incumbents are failing their constituents by opposing progressive policies with broad-based support.

These are the key findings:

The Democratic base is ready for multi-racial populism.

• Democratic primary voters want aggressive government action: More than 90 percent of Democratic primary voters support a tax on millionaires and increased regulation on banks. Eighty-six percent of Democratic primary voters support a government guarantee of health care. Eighty percent support the government taking actions to reduce inequality.

• Democratic primary voters increasingly reject racism:

Eighty-five percent of Democratic primary voters support a path to citizenship, and nearly 1 in 5 believe that it should not involve any penalties. For the first time since it’s been polled, a majority of white Democrats are more likely to blame discrimination than “willpower” for racial inequality.

It's time for a new nonvoter revolution.

• Nonvoters preferred Clinton to Trump 53/44.Full turnout would have lead to a Democratic Presidential victory in 2016.
• Nonvoters and marginal voters are more supportive of progressive policies. For example, 68 percent of nonvoters support increased regulation of big banks, compared to 52 percent of consistent voters.

Democrats can win elections without rejecting their base.

• The general public supports key, over-the-horizon Democratic priorities, from marijuana legalization and ending mandatory minimums to a $15 minimum wage and single-payer health care.
• Medicare for All and a $15 minimum wage are popular in purple states across the country.

Democrats are not representing the progressivism of their constituents.

• Many Democrats reject policies supported by the general public in their states and districts.

• Ninety-two percent of Democrats in the House represent districts where modeled support for repealing the Hyde Amendment is greater than 55 percent, but only 70 percent of House Democrats support repealing the Hyde Amendment. 

• Sixty-seven percent of Democrats in the Senate represent states where modeled support for Medicare for All is greater than 55 percent, but only 33 percent of Senate Democrats support Medicare for All.

This is one point that we often grapple with at DWT: "Democratic Politicians Falsely Believe Voters Are Less Progressive."

Politicians from both parties dramatically overestimate the conservatism of the voters they represent.

Academic research suggests that Democratic politicians may vote more conservatively because they fundamentally misunderstand the electorate. Political scientists David Broockman and Christopher Skovron surveyed 3,765 politicians and compared their views to modeled support for policies in their districts. They find that politicians from both parties dramatically overestimate the conservatism of the voters they represent. Another study examined party leaders, who often determine which candidates will end up running and who will gain the party’s backing. They find that Democratic Party leaders were far more likely than Republicans to favor centrist candidates and that leaders in both parties overestimated the conservatism of the electorate. In another study, political scientists Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, Matto Mildenberger, and Leah Stokes surveyed senior congressional aides as well as public opinion polling and find that these staffers “had a more conservative picture of their constituents’ opinions than the constituents actually expressed in polls.”

However, there is hope; research from political scientists Daniel Butler and David Nickerson suggests that when politicians are given accurate polling about their constituents, they move to align their policies with constituents.

Examining policies such as the minimum wage and racial justice, as well as tax policy, we find that Democrats are wrong to target the mushy middle. In fact, there is durable and consistent support for even over-the-horizon progressive policies across the country. Voters reject mandatory minimums, which have inflamed mass incarceration. Voters also reject the Hyde Amendment, an unnecessary limitation on a woman’s right to choose. Voters are more than ready for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take action on climate change and new investment in infrastructure.

Data from the 2016 American National Election Studies further confirm that Democrats can run unabashedly pro-choice and pro-climate campaigns. ANES asks respondents to place themselves on a scale from 1-7, with 1 being “Some people think the federal government needs to regulate business to protect the environment. They think that efforts to protect the environment will also create jobs” and 7 being “Others think that the federal government should not regulate business to protect the environment. They think this regulation will not do much to help the environment and will cost us jobs.” Fifty-eight percent placed themselves on the 1-3 side, 20 percent at 4, and only 22 percent on 5-7. According to the Cooperative Congressional Election Studies 2016 survey, 58 percent of adults agree with the statement, “Always allow a woman to obtain an abortion as a matter of choice.”

"Since Democrats in DC decided that the way to win is to pretend to be Republicans, we have lost over a thousand legislative seats nationally" said Levi Tillemann (CO-06). "Voters want someone with real principles who they know will fight for them, not for corporations, millionaires, and DC insiders. Our campaign for medicare for all, requiring millionaires and billionaires to invest in America (not just their stock portfolios), and moving to 100% renewable energy by 2035 is resonating because people know it's what I actually believe and people know it's what's best for the country."

Yesterday, John Herrick, writing for the Colorado Independent noted that Diana DeGette is facing progressive primary challenger Saira Rao who wants to shape the future of the Democratic Party. Saira told him that "Blue isn’t working. We’ve got to go true blue." A former Hillary voter, she's broken with the corporate establishment side of the party and "says corporations are buying votes from Democrats through campaign contributions. As part of her campaign, Rao has pledged to not take any money from corporations. And so far, she has narrowly outraised DeGette this year pulling in $255,000 to Degette’s $240,000."

DeGette says one of her proudest accomplishments while serving as a representative is the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, which increased funding for disease research. Congress passed the bill and it was signed by former President Barack Obama in 2016. This legislation helped DeGette earn the Jacob K. Javits Prize for Bipartisan Leadership.

But liberals seem uninspired by consensus making. Rao points out that Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sanders of Vermont claim the law eased regulations and was essentially a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. One of DeGette’s top donors this year is AbbVie, a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company. ...Rao’s supporters also criticized DeGette for having voted for Hillary Clinton as a superdelegate at the Democratic National Convention when Sanders won the Colorado caucus.

These comments from some the Blue America-endorsed candidates about the Democratic Party came from a post asserting that the Democratic Party would be doing better if they had some discernible economic policies that voters identified with them. Alan Grayson was the first up to bat: "Polls show that voters-- not just Democrats, voters-- overwhelmingly favor a minimum wage increase, paid sick leave, universal healthcare, Social Security and Medicare increases, lower taxes on working people, etc. You have to wonder how long Democratic 'leaders' are going to continue to wear the hair shirt." Last night he added "Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do the voters. A vacuous Democratic Party is a loser Democratic Party. The voters are shouting, 'please-- stand for something!'"

"I feel like I’m being completely unoriginal" Paul Clements (MI-06) told me, "but still it should be said: people don’t know what the Democratic Party stands for. I’ve heard it time and again at house parties and Democratic events around the district. I’ve given my stump speech so many times: (besides Trump) economic inequality is the issue, money in politics the cause, yes fix taxes and raise the minimum wage but we need to fix the basics: health care for all, education, and criminal justice. Then I fudge a fourth one, calling it a forward looking economic policy, and include renewable energy, energy efficient technologies, agricultural research, and major infrastructure investments. Then, oh, of course, we have to deal with climate change or all of this is off the table. The details matter, but you can probably pretty much fill them in. I know that these planks and more are in the last Democratic Party platform, but, seriously, so what? The Democratic Party does not have a clear agenda and people don’t know what it stands for. I think the agenda should address the basics. It should speak to economic inequality. But at least there should be a vision, there should be a program, so in house parties and such we don’t have to do all the work."

James Thompson is the progressive Democrat running in the Wichita-centered 4th Kansas district. His primary is August 7. And then he'll be facing right-wing Republican Ron Estes. He's all about the issues that Democrats need to speak to the voters about. Here's what he told me today:

When I was homeless and struggling to make ends meet I didn’t give a damn about the stock market, I was worried about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over the heads of myself and my baby brothers. The stock market and trade agreements are important parts of our economy, but until Democrats get back to protecting the kitchen table economy it will be hard to pull people back into the Democratic Party. Before people can care about things outside their own circle, they must feel confident in their own financial situation, which means they must have a stable job with a livable wage. That means a guaranteed jobs program and affordable healthcare and education. It means expanding Medicare and Social Security not cutting it. It means taking care of the farmers who feed us. It is the basic hierarchy of needs. Democrats as a party need to return to being FDR Democrats looking out for working people rather than corporate shills for Wall Street. We must remember that this is a government not of corporation interests, but a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We can get there, we just need to keep moving forward with electing progressives.

Sam Jammal, running in Orange County against a pack of carpetbagger multimillionaires who are trying to buy the seat, is also a progressive trying to talk with the CA-39 voters about issues. "Democrats win," he said, "if we have a positive economic message focused on lifting up the middle class. This means focusing on the cost of prescription drugs, student debt, housing affordability and creating good-paying jobs so families can enter the middle class. We won't win by just being anti-Trump. We also won't win if our campaigns are not focused on people's pocketbooks. The reality on the ground is that families are still struggling. We need to be identitied as the party that actually has a plan for lifting people up."

Kara Eastman, the progressive Democrat who won her primary against a Blue Dog last Tuesday, was victorious, in large part, because she campaigned on issues that real people are excited about. "It is time for policy makers to put people first. Common sense policies that prevent illness, ensure families can make a living wage and provide jobs should be at the core of what elected officials want to accomplish. Raising the minimum wage (which is actually supported by 74% of Americans) is one federal policy that would have a huge ripple effect in the nation. Universal healthcare (also supported by more than 60% of Americans) would also boost the economy by freeing employers from the shackles of being in the healthcare business. In addition, investing in infrastructure such as replacing lead service lines and creating green and healthy housing would create jobs while making our children healthier and safer."

Over in Maine, Jared Golden, a proud working class progressive who understands what solidarity means, is running for Democratic nomination in a June 12th primary. "If America had its priorities straight we could fix our economy. We need to fight for a fair tax plan that doesn’t give away trillions to the wealthy-elite and multinational corporations that aren’t investing in America. Take that revenue back and put it to work rebuilding American roads, rails and bridges. We need to stand with unions for better pay, and healthcare and retirement benefits. And renegotiate and reject bad trade deals that undermine wages and safety for workers. We need to stop allowing corporations and billionaires to waste so much capital on buying elections, so they can instead put that money to work on Main Street, creating jobs and paying people their real worth."

Tom Guild is running in the Oklahoma City Metro and he's warning the party establishment that progressives are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, not just corporatists. "Channeling what President Lyndon Johnson said decades ago, 'I’d rather have people inside the tent pissing out, instead of outside the tent pissing in.' If we don’t support progressive ideals and policies, too many progressives who are registered as members of the Democratic Party, will be outside the tent when the November election arrives. This lack of enthusiasm among our foot soldiers will be fatal to many of the party’s candidates. Independents who identify with the progressive movement will lose interest and opt out of the process. This seems to happen in Oklahoma and nationally in election after election. To maximize our turnout, we must chart a progressive course, support progressive proposals, and maximize the support of our progressive base. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, if voters are forced to choose between a Republican and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, they’ll pick the Republican every time!"

Ricardo Franco is the progressive Democrat up against Devin Nunes in California's Central Valley (CA-22). But, of course, there's also a conservative-- a very, very conservative-- establishment Democrat in the race as well. Ricardo read the Justice Democrats report and told me what he thought about it and how what it uncovers impacts his own race:

This report and recent election results throughout the country have confirmed what we hypothesized last summer: Progressive policies are what it takes to mobilize the Democratic base and swing over independents and Republicans. In my opinion this is because progressives speak directly to the issues affecting working-class Americans rather than traditional party politics.

When I started this campaign I was told I was too progressive to win. Now another Democratic candidate has adopted my platform and moved more towards the left. The centrist Democratic candidate in our race refused to even appear on television last night with another Democratic challenger and myself because they are presumably too afraid of going on the record on any issues.

Across the country we have seen progressives win elections and beat out establishment Democrats. In addition to having a winning policy, progressives are also proud of who they are and not afraid to stand for what they believe in. It's this combination of policy smarts and strong moral character that is leading progressives to victory.