The White Working Class Is Not Sold On Biden, But Will It Abandon Trump In The COVID-Election?

Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg recently watched a series of focus groups of white working class voters in rural Wisconsin, the Mahoning Valley region in Ohio, northern Maine and suburban Macomb County, Michigan, all swing areas where Trump did well. Vote-rich Macomb County, for example, gave Trump a 53.6-42.1% victory over Hillary in 2016, after going for Obama both times he ran. Trump won the northern Maine congressional district, which also voted for Obama twice, by an astounding 10 points-- 51.4% to 41.1%. In 2018 though, the district ousted its Republican congressman and elected, Jared Golden, a Democratic state legislator in his place.

Greenberg wrote that what he watched told him that "the heartbreaking health care crisis that is ravaging working-class and rural communities threatens to cut short Donald Trump’s political career, and demands a forceful response from opposition Democrats. It will teach big lessons about how to reach working people who are struggling, regardless of color." He shared his findings with the American Prospect, noting that "In 2016, a white working-class revolt enabled Trump to win [working class] men by an unimaginable 48 points and women by 27. But disillusionment was real in the midterms: The Republican House margin dropped 13 points across the white working class. In the new poll, Trump lost a further 6 points with white working-class women, where Biden only trailed Trump by 8 points (52 to 44 percent). While Trump has been throwing a lot of red meat to his base, white working-class men have not been dislodged from their trajectory, as Trump’s margin eroded another 4 points."

These are mostly low-wage families, many with children raised by a single parent. They are consumed with rising opioid deaths and disabilities and a deadly expensive health care system. That was a big part of why they voted for Donald Trump in 2016: so he could end Obamacare and its costly mandate, and deliver affordable health insurance for all. When he failed to do so, many voted against the Republicans in the midterms.

But the pandemic was the perfect storm. I have never seen such a poignant discussion of the health and disability problems facing families and their children, the risks they faced at work, and the prospect of even higher health care and prescription drug costs. The final straw was a president who battled not for the “forgotten Americans,” but for himself, the top one percent, and the biggest, greediest companies.

That is why most in the Zoom focus groups pulled back from President Trump. Three-quarters of these voters supported Trump in 2016, but less than half planned to vote for him now. Even those who still supported him did not push back when other participants expressed anger with his doing nothing about health care, fostering hatred and racism, dividing the country, siding with the upper classes, and having no plan for COVID-19. This is a life-and-death issue for them, as much as nearly any other group in American society.

The same voters were still very cautious about Joe Biden, who seemed old and not very strong, but most importantly offered the prospect of only minor changes to the health care system and seemed unlikely to challenge the power of the top one percent. Like lots of other working people, they are looking for a leader who will make big changes in health care, fight for working people over big business, and unite the country to defeat the current economic and public-health crisis.

Working-class anger with the establishment after the financial crisis of 2008 ran deep into the Democratic base of Blacks, Hispanics, unmarried women, and millennials, too. Many were not initially enthusiastic about the Affordable Care Act, and in election after election failed to rally fully for Democratic candidates until the 2018 midterms, when Democrats ran on “health care, health care, health care!” The pandemic may allow progressives to battle for working people, regardless of color.

In today's working-class and rural communities, health care is everything. In introductory remarks, participants in the focus groups went right to the personal health care crises they were facing every day.

“My wife is disabled,” said one man from Wisconsin. “My daughter has 30 percent immune system left so she’s bouncing around from doctor to doctor and the wife says don’t bring [the pandemic] home.” Another Wisconsin man spoke of his terminally ill seven-year-old son. A woman in Maine explained how she nearly bled to death and had a $24,000 medical bill “on my credit report for who knows how long.” One woman from Ohio had two kids with autism, and another had a grandson with allergies, requiring access to a lifesaving EpiPen. “I haven’t been able to get him one for the last three years, I can’t afford it... my insurance won’t cover it,” the woman said. Prices have skyrocketed for EpiPens and remain stubbornly high.

As I was observing the Zoom group, I initially wondered whether the focus group recruiter had used some specialized list to find the participants. But then I checked the census data on disabilities.

Across the country, 12.6 percent of the population has disabilities, rising to 15.1 percent in rural areas. Black and Native American populations are more likely to have disabilities than their white counterparts. The rate is over a quarter for those 65 to 74 years old and half of those over 75 years-- all groups that are overrepresented in these rural areas. And structural racism has played a powerful role here: 20 percent of Blacks with disabilities were employed at the beginning of this year, compared to 30 percent of whites and Hispanics with disabilities.

Then I looked at census data for the congressional districts where these sessions were being held. It was a new window into America in the pandemic. In suburban Macomb County, the disability rate looks like the rural areas, with 14 percent of both whites and Blacks disabled. In northern Maine, the numbers show one in five with disabilities, slightly more for whites. In Ohio’s Sixth Congressional District, both one in five whites and Blacks are disabled. And seniors in these areas are even more disabled than other rural Americans.



TRUMP KNEW IN FEBRUARY-- AND LIED TO THE PUBLIC


So COVID violently brought together the personal health crises of these people and the failed and corrupted government response, breaking their emotional bond with Trump.

Just throw out the words “health care,” and people relayed a train of horrors: a “$16,000 deductible,” employers throwing them off health insurance, “ridiculous” premiums, a $400 bill for their asthma medicine paid for out of pocket. They spoke of the frustrations of making too much money to be eligible for Medicaid but not enough to stay in the solid middle class. They explained how people avoid treatment because they can’t pay the associated costs. “The way we deliver health care is just unbelievable,” said one woman from Michigan, “the amount of waste and how much it costs to let people go bankrupt to pay for medical bills.”

Most of the respondents live on the edge in a virtual “minimum wage” economy, where companies don’t care about their employees and look just to enrich themselves. “You’re just a number now,” said one Ohio woman. They fight for every dime, as they are being overwhelmed by a health care crisis that they recognize Donald Trump has failed to fix. And importantly, for working families outside poverty, the health care reforms passed by the Democrats-- the Affordable Care Act and insurance on the health care exchanges-- just were not much help.

Discussion of the Affordable Care Act did not sound ideological, as they talked about their direct experience with insurance on the exchanges, which in the words of one woman “costs a lot of money and doesn’t pay for much of anything.” The health care system is failing them, and they want someone to fix it. And Joe Biden’s rhetoric has not been very reassuring that he would make big changes. “He’s been vague on health care,” one woman from Wisconsin said. “I want to know the specifics of what he’ll do to make it better.”

These working-class and rural swing voters voted overwhelmingly for Trump, but their response to him is now profoundly shaped by what has happened in the COVID-19 crisis. They think he failed to take the virus seriously and has just made a mess of it. They think he is failing at the most important issue for them.

What was striking is how the usual Trump deflect-and-blame strategy no longer works with these swing voters. “It seems like a lot of the stuff he’s saying could be proven wrong,” said one man from Wisconsin. “He just won’t admit where things are, he’s out of touch with reality,” said another woman. “It’s just embarrassing to have a country with the highest COVID cases, highest COVID deaths,” said a man in Michigan. “We’re supposed to be the leader in the world and we completely fumbled the ball on this.”

Respondents despaired about the lack of a national plan of action, with everyone “just left on their own.” Meanwhile, there was dismay that the president gave more care to his family’s businesses than the rest of the nation. One woman theorized that he didn’t shut down domestic travel “because he owns hotels.” These participants are paying a lot of attention to the position of Trump’s family in the administration and how the bailouts and loans are benefiting his family business, his cronies, and the top one percent.

At the same time, they are on a financial knife’s edge, worried about being one bad break away from being homeless. The focus groups happened after the $600 federal unemployment benefit ended, and those in the groups who were out of work despaired of getting by without that. Nearly all of them supported Trump in 2016 because he was a businessman who would grow the economy. But now they’re scared about the economic damage. Trump reminding these voters of his great economic successes before the pandemic fell flat. His economic bravado was not reassuring at a terrifying moment. “I remember my father watching the news and crying, and I find myself crying sometimes when I watch the news,” related a woman from Wisconsin. “And I think, oh god, I’m turning into my parents. You have no choice. The things you see are gut-wrenching.”

In emails we asked the participants to send to President Trump, you can feel that the spirit that led them to join the working-class revolt is just broken. While some hope he will get back in the right direction, most used their email to express their deep disillusionment. You can feel that they wanted a president who didn’t divide the country and make it a “laughingstock” (two writers used that exact word) internationally. They wanted a president who put the interests of the people, not just big business, first.

“I supported you in the beginning over Hillary but in the end unfortunately, you show me you’re just not for the people,” wrote one man from Wisconsin. “You lied to the American people about COVID,” wrote another. “You are everything that is wrong with America, you have effectively ruined this country,” added a woman from Ohio. “Congrats, you suck.”

It is critical to listen for what they did not say: “What an ass I was to vote for that guy in the last election.” They did not regret or say they made a mistake. All working Americans have been in financial trouble since the 2008 crash, and rising health care problems and disabilities, health care costs and deductibles, and empowered insurance and pharmaceutical companies were an explosive brew. It is why many working people voted for Trump in 2016. It is why many working-class Democrats of color and millennials failed to turn out and defend Obamacare in midterm elections and in 2016. All these voters had reasons for those choices.

COVID has shattered so many lives, but also seemingly insurmountable political barriers. The great majority of working people, regardless of color, are desperate for a government that stops taking direction from the pharmaceutical companies, and brings the boldest feasible changes to our health care system.

Western Riverside County (CA-42) is one of the fastest growing areas in southern California-- and one of the last southern California districts with a Republican member of Congress, in this case "Crooked" Ken Calvert. In 2016, Trump won the district, although by smaller margins than McCain or Romney. Still, his 53.4% to 41.4% win over Hillary was substantial. In 2018, the anti-red wave wasn't big enough to dislodge Calvert. This year, though, the Democrats nominated a better candidate, independent minded progressive Liam O'Mara. His district shares a lot of traits with the districts Greenberg was looking at. There is a white plurality and nearly 40% of the adults did not go beyond high school. About 21% are blue collar workers and 44% are sales and service workers. Liam had quite a lot to say about it, as you might expect. Please read it-- and then consider contributing to his campaign by clicking on the Bluer California thermometer below.

There is a lot of anger in the Inland Empire. The biggest challenges Democrats have faced out here have to do with the targets of that anger. Lacking the populist energy nationally to focus it on the élites who have kept wages low and costs high, too much of the population has been susceptible to fearmongering about immigration and crime. In election after election, Calvert has been all-too-happy to shift the blame for his policies onto working class brown and black people, maintaining a firm lock on the working class white vote in the district.

A couple of key factors now threaten that strategy, both in 2020 and long term. The first is demography. While white voters remain solidly in the majority for the district, they are not as monolithic in their views, with many more recent migrants from other parts of southern California attracted by lower housing costs. And the district is a lot more diverse than it once was, with large immigrant communities from Asia, and with Hispanic people making up more than a third of the total.

The other important change is to the national conversation on economics. It is true that Biden is exactly the kind of milquetoast neoliberal who has said he cares about the people but delivers mainly for the super rich, and he will not excite people at the polls. That he isn't Trump just won't be enough in this area, even with the pandemic raging. Bernie won the district by a very solid margin in the primary, and were he our standard-bearer, retiring Crooked Ken Calvert would be much easier. But the shift in policy emphasis matters still for our own race, and it is why we have drawn in so many new voters and historic independents this year.

Given the very real impact on ordinary people of rising costs and stagnant wages, this country needs to turn around. It elected Barack Obama because he spun a tale about hope and change that resonated with a country in the grip of recession. There was a historic opportunity in those first two years to realign the economy to favour growth for all, not just the one per cent. Alas, Obama failed completely to rise to the challenge of the day, preferring to bail out the people who caused the problem, not those who suffered its effects. At the end of the day, exactly the same people and ideas were left in charge. This is how we got Trump. And people really thought Biden was their best shot against him? For some reason, "It's the economy, stupid!" remains one of the hardest lessons for this party to learn.

If Democrats really want to win nationally, not just against Trump but consistently, and regain ground in the swing states, we must get back to our New Deal roots and tear up the nonsensical DLC crap that's driven the party since the 1970s. And a new batch of policy-driven challengers across the state and country give me hope that we're gaining ground at the grassroots at least. The Squad is already set to double this year, and there are a lot of great challengers running in red districts as well as the safely blue seats.

The purplish districts are where the real action is, in my view. If folks like Kara Eastman, Blair Walsingham, and I can flip red seats, or at the least improve upon past Democratic performance in these areas, we can show that populist issues resonate with a wider share of the population. That is the path back to the unchallenged dominance which the Democratic party enjoyed in the House thanks to the FDR to LBJ economic consensus. Since those days, we have lamentably allowed the fault lines to shift to racial issues and law-and-order dogwhistles, thanks to Republican strategy.

But we didn't need to fall for it! It's the same shit they pulled in the late 19th century against the populist movement of those days, disrupting solidarity with racism. And as I like to remind people, those who reject the lessons of history are condemned to repeat its mistakes. We need to get past the narrow focus on identity politics and work for all Americans again. Yes, the country is more diverse, and we should continue to embrace that diversity... but not at the expense of talking about the cost of living and the declining American Dream.

We need to be laser-focussed on the things that will get the attention of working people overall: The high cost of health care and housing, the unjust tax burden, the lack of affordable child care and elder care, the limited opportunities for education and business-creation, and the high crime rates caused by stubbornly-high poverty. We need to stop ceding the economy to the Republicans and the corrupt neoliberals, and start telling people that they can dream again.

I am running to lower the cost of living for working families, period. I don't talk about Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi because they have nothing to do with my race. I tell people that they'll have a fighter in me-- someone who will go to bat for them against anyone, of either party, who says they need to tolerate the poor conditions they face now. We deserve an economy that works for all of us, and that starts with replacing tools of the ruling class like Crooked Ken Calvert.

Pick One: Fewer Deaths Or More Corporate Profits

Last week one of the famous electoral prognosticators, who never gets anything right until a day or two before the election, looked at the Senate election in Montana and pontificated that "Based on what we can piece together, the race seems like it’s neck and neck at the moment. But does that actually make it a Toss-up? We are not quite there yet." I wrote that he should be there and will be there in a few weeks and went into why, which you can read at the link. But a new poll of likely voters from Montana State University shows Bullock pulling out ahead already.

The Democratic governor-- whose state has the second fewest COVID-19 cases in the country (after Alaska) and just 439 cases per million (compared to a national number of 3,681 per million)-- has pulled ahead of the incumbent Steve Daines, whose head hasn't been pulled out of Trump's ass once this year. Montanans were asked who they would vote for if the election for Senate were held now.

• Bullock- 46%
• Daines- 39%
• Someone else (Libertarian or Green)- 6%
• Unsure- 7%

53% of Montana voters approve of Trump's response to the pandemic, but 70% approve of Bullock's response. (Only 48% approve of Daines' response-- and 28% said they don't know what Daines' response is.)

Bullock isn't exactly a Berniecrat-- not by a long shot-- but he seems pretty good for an establishment guy and is certainly better than any of Schumer's other recruits. I wouldn't be surprised if the Montana Senate race turns out to be the only case in the country where Schumer and I are backing the same challenger.

There seems to be a structural difference between conservatives and progressives when it comes to a very basic perspective playing out right now in regard to how to confront the pandemic-- individualism vs societal cooperation. I bet you're not surprised to see that conservatives value business over life and progressives value lives over business. John Pavlovitz seem to have tweeted it this week:

And for the conservative side of the argument, let's turned to the former-- and hopefully last-- Republican governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, a guest on Dana Bash's show Monday. Christie told her that the country needs to reopen, despite separate key coronavirus models forecasting that thousands may die daily.

"Of course, everybody wants to save every life they can-- but the question is, towards what end, ultimately?" Christie, a Republican tapped to lead President Donald Trump's presidential transition team in 2016, told CNN's Dana Bash on the Daily DC Podcast. "Are there ways that we can... thread the middle here to allow that there are going to be deaths, and there are going to be deaths no matter what?"

Christie told Bash that "we've got to let some of these folks get back to work, because if we don't, we're going to destroy the American way of life in these families-- and it will be years and years before we can recover." His comments Monday echoed similar characterizations by other Republicans-- including President Donald Trump-- that the economic impact of coronavirus is just as devastating to the nation as the virus itself.

When Bash pressed Christie on whether people would be able to accept reopening in light of news of a Trump administration model projecting a rise up to about 3,000 daily US deaths from coronavirus by June 1, Christie responded, "They're gonna have to."

"We're in the midst of a pandemic that we haven't seen in over 100 years," he said. "And we're going to have to continue to do things."

With governors facing mounting pressure mounting to reopen their states' economies and Trump itching to scale back on social distancing nationwide as soon as possible, more than half of states had lifted aspects of their stay-at-home orders as of Monday.

Yet, a separate influential coronavirus model often cited by the White House is now forecasting that 134,000 people will die of Covid-19 in the United States, nearly double its previous prediction. The model, from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, had predicted 72,433 deaths as of Monday morning.

Christie, asked Monday what his messaging would be to the American public if he sat in the Oval Office, said, "The message is that the American people have gone through significant death before." He pointed to the first and second World Wars as examples of how "we've gone through it and we've survived it. We sacrificed those lives."

"We sent our young men during World War Two over to Europe, out to the Pacific, knowing, knowing that many of them would not come home alive," he said, adding: "And we decided to make that sacrifice because what we were standing up for was the American way of life. In the very same way now, we have to stand up for the American way of life."

The former governor lamented the "economic devastation" as "equally sad," and told Bash that while he wasn't advocating for crowded public gatherings like rock concerts or football games, "we have to let certain people get back to work because I can see my own state here."

Christie encouraged vulnerable populations to stay indoors, as "they're the ones who are gonna really swallow this burden badly, the elderly and those with respiratory diseases, depressed immune systems from cancer treatments or other things."

"Those folks are going to have to be even more careful than the rest of the population," he added. "I don't know what the choice is."

There's a way to do this and minimize loss of life and there's a way to do this and minimize loss of profit. It's not all black or all white; it's a matter of prioritization. Conservatives pick one way and progressives pick the other. As a voter, you'll have to pick between the two. Liam O'Mara is the progressive Democrat taking on corrupt Republican incumbent Ken Calvert in Riverside County, California. Riverside County has the 4th highest population in California, after L.A., San Diego and Orange counties. But Riverside is second in the number of COVID infections and deaths. CA-42, where Liam is running, gave Calvert a 56.5% to 43.5% win in 2018 (an R+13 PVI). That would be just the kind of district with large numbers of sociopaths who refuse to obey social distancing regulations out of selfishness and disregard for their neighbors. And the county band of supervisors is debating whether or not to just scrap the regulations altogether and open up for business without masks or social distancing. This is the sensible letter O'Mara sent the board:

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) noted that "We can deliver unemployment checks to those who were laid off. We can get loans to small businesses who had to shut down. We can provide stimulus payments to families affected by the pandemic. But we cannot bring the dead back to life. This is why we cannot haphazardly rush to reopen without adequate testing, tracing and isolation."

Bullseye by Nancy Ohanian

A Guest Post By Liam O'Mara-- A Moral Force Or A Rogue State? Our Choice in 2020

The U.S. has made another blunder in the Middle East which will impact us for years to come. Will it lead to a much wider war? That’s hard to say, though speaking as a historian of the Middle East and an analyst of its politics, I would say it is not especially likely. But it will have severe consequences, and it will cost us in blood and treasure. I think we have a right to ask why it happened, and to consider our standing in the world.

Was it legal to kill Qassim Soleimani? That depends on who you ask. Assassinations are against both U.S. and international law, though his designation in 2011 as a terrorist means there is a paper-thin justification under post-9/11 laws-- the same laws which have allowed us to engage in military activity in ten countries or more. So yes, we murdered someone, but we called him a terrorist so that might make it okay under the extremely-broad authorizations Congress has given to our presidents.

Consider what happened, though: We killed a senior officlal of a foreign government with which we are not at war, in a third country in which we did not have authorization to act, and in the process killed citizens of that country. We violated Iraqi sovereignty, and under international law we committed an act of war against Iran. Whether they retaliate for it is almost beside the point-- we have already made war against Iran, and we will have to deal with some inevitable fall-out from that.

But whether or not it was legal, was it right to kill Qassim Soleimani? If you ask Representative Ken Calvert, it definitely was. He has been crowing about what a bad guy Soleimani is, and how killing him was our duty or something. Was Soleimani a bad guy? Sure, he was. His organization has been involved in some terrible affairs in Iraq and Syria. But is this a reason to kill, and if so, where does it end? Who do we kill next?

I have some questions for Representative Calvert and the voters of the 42nd. First, are we a country that respects due process and the rule of law, and do we mean anything when we sign treaties or swear to uphold the Constitution? Or are we, instead, a rogue state that feels above the law, beholden to nothing, able to kill or make war whenever and wherever it pleases? I know which of the two I prefer, and which Ken Calvert prefers.

Our Constitution intended a limited government focused on maintaining peace at home. Is it right that our tax dollars, and our young men and women, be used in a series of endless wars overseas? Many of these actions do not make us safer-- they breed resentment and create enemies, which are then used as pretext for more killing, in an endless cycle of violence and corporate greed. We have continued to fight in eight countries and increased the number of troops several times. What do we get for that?

I would like to see an America which serves as a moral example to the world, concerned with the betterment of its citizens. We need to stop feeding the war machine, and start building houses and hospitals, roads and bridges, factories and farms. Our living standards are literally falling, and instead of improving the lives of people here, Representative Calvert would rather start more wars. I think that we deserve better.

Liam is a professor of history specializing in the history of the Middle Eastern. His opponent, Ken Calvert, is a crooked real estate developer who has been caught several times using government power to enrich himself. If you like what Liam had to say and you think he would make a good replacement for Calvert, please consider contributing what you can to his campaign at the special California Is Not Blue Enough thermometer on the right.

December's First Blue America Endorsement: Liam O'Mara

A couple of weeks ago, we met Liam O'Mara, through my own lens. Now lets revisit him through his own. "I am running as a progressive populist in a red district in California," he began. "I can hear the scepticism, the groans of exasperation-- 'What are you thinking, running as a progressive in a district that Trump took by twelve points?' I'm glad you asked, because I think it is a model we should follow all across the country." This is Liam's guest post. Please consider contributing to his campaign if you like what he had to say. You can use the Blue America thermometer just below.

The Case For Political Courageousness
by Liam O'Mara

Much attention has gone to insurgent runs against Democrats by "The Squad," but the same ideas can work in Republican strongholds if the messaging is clear. By sticking to progressive policies which address the economic interests of American workers-- but framing those policies in ways that make sense to them-- we can go back to winning elections all across the heartland, and finally have the numbers in Congress to address the major challenges of our time.

First, by way of introduction, I should note a few things about myself. I am a professor of history by trade, but I did not have a privileged upbringing-- my father worked on the waterfront in the Port of Los Angeles / Long Beach, and my mother ran a daycare in her house. I was the first in my family to get a college degree, and my working class roots are an important part of my identity.

There is something to that kind of up-from-nothing success story which can appeal to us as Americans-- but it is a myth. All nations have their own myths & dreams, and the Horatio Alger / rags-to-riches story is a part of our cultural mythos. Yet it has been such a rare occurrence that its pervasiveness owes more to the propaganda function of media than to reality. The path to riches is not laid out by hard work alone-- or are we to believe that only 0.000002% of Americans work hard?

We all know that isn't true, and Americans of all ages work hard to pay the bills and provide for their families. That's what we're really aiming for-- to improve our own lot in life and make a better future for those who come after is. That's the American Dream, and it is real. It has given generations of Americans, immigrant and native-born alike, an aspiration-- to be better off than their parents, to have a home and a job and a retirement fund, to afford a family and maybe the occasional bit of time off!

That dream is dying. Or rather, it is being murdered by conservative and neoliberal economic policies which strip wealth from ordinary Americans and siphon it into the accounts of an oligarchic elite. As a historian, I pay close attention to the lessons of the past and the way they help to explain the present. Nothing about the Trumpist phenomenon has been a surprise; indeed, I have long argued that this turn towards neofascist populism was inevitable in the Republican party post-Reagan.

We live today in a world created by Reaganite policies-- a world very like that of the Robber Baron era, when most of the country’s wealth was held in a tiny number of hands, and people today are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Nearly a trillion dollars was lost by the bottom 50% of the country in the last few decades. Meanwhile, the top few per cent have seen record-breaking levels of profit.

The media is lying when it talks about economic growth, because-- let’s face it-- the stock market and job-creation numbers do not paint a full-enough picture of what is happening. Despite higher levels of workforce participation and more education, Millennials earn less than Boomers did at the same age, and have a far higher cost of living. The reasons for this are not complex-- wages have remained flat for nearly fifty years. As productivity levels have soared, poor tax policy has allowed those gains to translate into wealth for a few, and rising debt for the many.

It is this disparity in wealth which has made the Trump era possible. When the liberal orthodoxies only increase inequality and fears for the future, and no left-populist or socialist alternative is available, workers will drift into the arms of demagogues who offer simple solutions to their ills. It’s the immigrants! It’s China! It’s the fake news media! When people are hurting, and someone offers them an enemy, it is all-too-tempting to listen.

Trump’s rise was made possible, not by latent racism or by conservatism, but by the failure to articulate a rational alternative. An alliance with financial elites may have translated into some short-term successes in the 1990s, but even these were illusory-- Bill Clinton won the presidency both times with less than half of the vote because an independent populist sapped votes from the two major parties. There was a lesson to be learned from Ross Perot’s “great sucking sound,” and unfortunately it was some in the Republican party who listened.

Income inequality lies at the core of the collapsing American Dream. What we need to be talking about is equality of opportunity-- giving people the resources they need to pick themselves up and make whatever they want of their lives. This is what made America great! There is a real irony in watching a reactionary Republican party herald a past “golden age” of prosperity which was created by the very policies they most despise! Post-war America built a strong welfare state on the back of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Republican and Democratic presidents alike, from Truman and Eisenhower, through Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, all accepted its basic outlines. Massive federal spending was supported by progressive taxation and steady growth. That growth itself was a result of tax policy, as it incentivized investment in the real economy and good pay for workers. Fordist logic-- the principle whereby workers are paid enough to be able to afford your products-- was the order of the day, and factory workers could afford a suburban dream-home just as easily as dentists and lawyers.

If we are going to fight back against the destructive influence of the Chicago School’s neoliberal economic ideals, we have to get back to talking about those bold liberal visions that created the middle class in America. And that means taking a class-conscious approach, reaching out to working class voters regardless of education levels, and telling them our ideas will make them richer-- because they will!

Failure to heed this strategy has been disastrous for Democrats and for the country. Letting our emphasis on the workers slip has allowed a Republican party whose ideas are harming workers to claim their loyalty. We must get back to fighting for those same hearts and minds, and we can do that by talking about basic economics again, and showing the voters that we have a path forward that will help all Americans.

The United States was once a beacon of opportunity to the entire world-- a place where anyone could make something of her or himself with a bit of hard work. Today the European Union has far higher rates of social mobility, and we are literally slipping backward-- lower lifespans, less wealth, more debt. This is unacceptable. We are the richest country in the history of the world, and our quality of life is worsening year by year.

Trump is not the problem. Trump’s politics are not the problem. Both are symptoms of a deeper disease-- the collapse of the American left. Trump’s brand of right-populism is a predictable outcome, and on our current course, it will only grow stronger. Climate change will cause refugee crises that future demagogues can exploit, for example. We stand to lose, not only our way of life and our living standards-- now 16th in the world and falling steadily-- but our very freedom.

We must fight back, and the way to do that lies in appeals to the working class. Literal socialists once did well in states like Oklahoma and Wisconsin, so why can’t social democrats mine that same territory? By linking together the concerns of urban liberals and rural workers, we can build a winning coalition that will tackle the systemic forces that are killing hope for the future.

It will take a positive message to push back against the nihilism of the anti-establishment Trump vote. We must not shame those voters-- dismissing his electoral coalition as a "basket of deplorables", sexists and racists, misses the point. Some are, sure. Others simply heard the man aim his message at the kind of voters who traditionally backed social democrats. We can win them to our side by reaching out and offering them hope.

Ah, hope, that elusive wisp of wonder that can motivate us as well as can fear! A focus on hope drove Obama to his first electoral success, while his reëlection was hampered by disillusionment over the continued decline in American fortunes. Wall Street recovered from the 2008 financial crash, but Main Street never did. We must learn the dual lesson there-- hope works, but it must be paired with real policies to tackle the issues.

Since 1992, Democrats have surrendered most statehouses to Republicans, and have been often in the minority in Washington. If Democrats wish to retake the heartland, they must speak to the economic insecurities of the American people, and offer a path towards reclaiming the promise of the American Dream. The New Deal offers a template still, pointing us towards what this country could be under sane economic stewardship.

Working people know that they are being left behind, but it's not the fault of immigrants, or machines, or college graduates, or any other convenient scapegoat. It is caused by incorrect tax policy and corporate regulation. We have the evidence for this-- all that remains is to make our case to the people. A fifty-state strategy is in reach. We need only to extend our arm and seize it.

I have built my own candidacy on three core values: Integrity, Accountability, and Vision. To the first, I can assure voters that I am my own man, and cannot be bought. I am not a tool of focus groups and consultants-- I am who I am. To the second, I pledge to speak for the people and to the people-- to hold regular town halls and to answer all questions put to me in person and electronically. Public servants are meant to serve, not to enrich themselves at our expense, and corruption is a bipartisan issue that gives clean-money candidates a way to reach conservatives.

As to the third, I will build on my academic background to present a path forward built on the bold visions that created the middle class, and show how social democratic policies can make us all richer, healthier, and freer. We have the knowledge needed to make a case. There are hundreds of good candidates, untainted by the spiderwebs of corruption and ready to run. All they need -- all we need-- is your support.

The DCCC Isn't Interested But The California Democratic Party Just Endorsed Berniecrat Liam O'Mara To Take On GOP Crook Ken Calvert

CA-42 is one of the last remaining red districts in California. The district voted against Obama both times he ran and last year gave Trump a 53.4-41.4% win over Hillary. The district, entirely in western Riverside County has an R+9 PVI. The main population centers are Corona, Norco, Eastvale, Menifee and Murrieta. A weird crooked Republican, Ken Calvert, has been in office there since 1992. The demographics of the district have been shifting away from the GOP and whites are no longer a majority:

• White- 42.9%
• Latino- 38.5%
• Asian- 9.0%
• Black- 5.2%

The Republican registration edge is beginning to erode and Republicans are no longer a majority:

• Republicans- 143,195 (38.30%)
• Democrats- 110,516 (29.56%)
• No Party Preference- 99,502 (26.62%)

Over the weekend, the California Democratic Party convention endorsed Liam O'Mara to take on Calvert. Liam is a history professor at Chapman University and comes from all-union family. His campaign website begins with his extensive issues pages-- Medicare-for-All, Green New Deal, fair taxation, affordable housing, tuition-free state colleges, gun regulation, comprehensive immigration reform, campaign finance reform... all the things you would expect from a Berniecrat. But I want to start with a section called Frequently Asked Questions, because it's funny and I've never seen anything like it on any candidate's website. I republished 3. Please read them and if you like them, please consider contributing to his campaign by tapping on the Bluer California thermometer on the right.

• But but but... that beard! And that hair!

Yes, I have a long beard and long hair. I’m glad you noticed. I realize that this is highly unusual in American politics today, and yes I could have trimmed it shorter for the campaign-- here is why I did not.

My campaign is built around a central theme: integrity. To cut it off just for an election would be inauthentic. It would be pursuing body-modification for the sole purpose of chasing votes, and that to me rings false. It seems dishonest. As I will be telling people again and again in this campaign, we may not agree on every issue, but one thing you’ll always get with me is honesty. I will sit down with you, listen to your concerns, and answer your questions as directly and honestly as I can. I want government to serve the people, and that means listening to them, taking their thoughts seriously, and finding solutions that address their concerns. With me you’ll always get that. And the easiest way to see that is, well… that in spite of all the political advice to conform to expectations, I decided to come to you as I am, and make my appeal to you based upon my character, my experience, and what I can do for you-- not what I look like.

• How is a historian helpful to me in Congress?

I have always read widely-- indeed, my house is literally a private library, with bookcases covering every possible space. For me, history is the center of a vast spider web that connects every branch of human knowledge, its sole defining feature being the recognition of change over time. As a historian of ideas, that is what I study. And in that capacity, I have learned a lot about who we are, where we’ve come from, and where we might still go. I have studied economic history, so I know what made American rich and how to ensure that promise reaches us all. I have studied cultural history, so I know something about our differences and how to bridge divides, find common ground, and treat others with respect. I have studied diplomatic history, so I know a fair bit about foreign policy and geopolitics-- I still read a dozen newspapers a week from half a dozen countries. I have studied the history of science, so I have a keen sense of what we can do when we put our minds to it.

With me in Congress, you get someone not only dedicated to public service, but who has knowledge directly revelant to many areas of public policy, from foreign relations to macroeconomics to the environment. I can draw on my background in research, my contacts in academia, and my willingness to reach outside my comfort zone and confront difficult truths. Politics requires not only a willingness to compromise and work toward common goals-- it also requires solid data and the tools to identify it. My training makes it harder for bad information to slip past unnoticed, and means I am a lot more critical of what I get from the news. With me on a committee, I can promise attention to detail and a willingness to put in long hours to review how a proposal actually works… or whether it works! Electing me gets you not just another partisan hack-- it gets you someone able to work through complex bills and make an informed decision about whether they serve your interests.

• With the demographics of CA-42, how will you appeal to independents and moderate Republicans?

An explicitly “centrist” message, designed to lure Republicans, does not work, and Democrats steadily chasing Republicans to the right has been shown a massive failure all across the country. What can work, however, is a campaign centered on economic populism, since this has proven cross-over appeal-- in fact, such messages are behind the previous success of Democrats in much of the country prior to the rightward realignment of our political landscape. My principles will be clear and my positions progressive, but they will be cast in economic terms so that they can best be understood and appreciated by voters who are not interested in the moral priorities Democrats consider vital. Focussing my messaging to suit the characteristics of the district-- by hammering home kitchen-table economic issues-- allows us to expand our coalition and gain enough votes to win.

One way to see the value of this is to consider that, for all their massive differences in social policy and personal integrity, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both hit populist notes in their campaign rhetoric which had substantial bipartisan appeal. A massive post-election survey of 50,000 voters suggests that up to 12% of Bernie’s primary voters went for Trump in the general election. Finding a way to reach that fraction of the electorate can give us much of the difference between Republican and Democratic votes in the 42nd. That ultimately Trump’s rhetoric is dishonest, and his policies mostly their opposite, is beside the point-- what mattered was his effort to channel the frustrations of the working class. If Democrats stand firmly for the working class above all-- a proposition that works well with our priorities in general-- then I believe a portion of Trump’s coalition can be attracted to our ticket.

Another way in which I can reach out to independents and NPPs is my own non-partisan mentality and outsider mentality. Yes, my views are consistently progressive, but I am not a tribal person by nature, and will review all policies, issues, and bills on their own merits, on their own details, and determine what is in the best interests of the 42nd. My background is in policy analysis, not as a creature of machine politics, and I will let my principles guide my legislative identity, not partisan calculations.

Now, a few words about the whacko congressman who Liam is running to replace, Ken Calvert. Let's start with a report about Calvert on, of all places, Fox News. Here's Chris Wallace reporting about what a totally crooked slime ball Calvert is:





Calvert first came to wide attention when he was arrested-- a pretty typical Republican "Family Values" hypocrite-- with a young woman he didn't know in a parked car, his pants down around his knees. (She turned out to be Lore Lorena Lindberg, a heroin addict with several prostitution convictions.) Although he tried to flee the scene of the crime, the policeman caught him and arrested him. Here's an interesting report on Calvert from the arresting officer:

You can click on the document to make it easier to read

Let's end on a better note than that wretched Calvert and his hypocrisy and lack of ethics. He's just another Trumpist. Instead, let's go back and take a look at Liam's introductory video. It's a good one:

Ken Calvert Is Surrounded-- Time To Replace This Corrupt Trump Enabler

When Ken Calvert was first elected to Congress in 1992, CA-42, the western Riverside County district, was in the heart of a deep red swathe of Republican California. Today, Calvert is surrounded by Democrats. To the east is CA-36, the Palms Springs district, today Raul Ruiz's D+2 seat. To the north, he's bordered by Mark Takano's CA-41 (D+12) and Norma Torres' CA-35 (D+19). To the west are 3 districts that just flipped from red to blue last year-- CA-39 (Gil Cisneros), CA-45 (Katie Porter) and CA-49 (Mike Levin). In the South is a big desert-- CA-50-- where Duncan Hunter, Jr, the son of Calvert's old crony, Duncan Hunter, Sr, is on very vulnerable and seriously on the ropes.

Calvert is the last Republican holdout in the Inland Empire and, with the exception of Hunter, the last Republican holdout in southern California (not counting a part of Paul Cook's CA-08, which begins nearly as far north as Sacramento along the eastern border of the state and makes its way down into Barstow and Victorville). The clock is ticking for Calvert as well. CA-42 is no longer a white majority district.

• White- 44.7%
• Black- 5.2%
• Latino- 37.2%
• Asian-8.9%

Last year, Calvert managed to beat Julia Peacock, a school teacher, spending $1,611,609 to her $149,565. The DCCC studiously ignored the race and Peacock was left to fight Calvert on her own, in a district where the PVI is still a daunting R+9. McCain beat Obama 54-43% there and Romney did even better: 56.5% to 41.4%. Hillary scored the same 41.4% although Trump did worse than Romney and McCain with 53.4%. Peacock actually did better last year than Hillary or Obama had done in the district.

The 42nd, entirely in Riverside County, starts up in Corona, goes south through the Temescal Valley, past Lake Elsinore through Murrieta and east to Menifee and beyond into a part of the state where there's not much to do besides manufacture and take meth. The stink of cooking meth hangs heavy in the air in some parts of the sparsely-populated eastern end of the district.

Calvert is kind of a lowlife-- who was caught with an underage prostitute in a parked car [read the police report here] and has been involved with some shady financial real estate dealings in the district. Watch Chris Wallace exposing Calvert's criminal activities on Fox News:





Who the hell votes to reelect someone like Ken Calvert? Meth-heads? I've long thought it was commuters, stuck in traffic with hate talk radio blaring in their consciousnesses day after day, month after month, year after year. Yesterday, I asked Julia Peacock how she thought she might be able to do better in 2020 than she did in 2018. Here's what she told me:

My team and I have learned a lot. We saw what worked and what didn't. We know that our biggest challenge is money (isn't it always), but it's also making sure we knock on more doors. Our grassroots volunteers knocked on 30,000 doors (not nearly enough) and polled the voters to the tune of 97% pro-Julia. We have to have a larger apparatus for canvassing, and we're already working on that now by reaching out to grassroots organizations across blue areas in Southern California.

One of the mistakes we made the first cycle was keeping ourselves close to home. I felt it necessary to work within the district to reach voters right here. However, we didn't have the capacity to turn that into a victory. Lesson learned: We need more help from other groups who aren't married to the Democratic party (which hasn't done squat to shift this district blue in more than a quarter century). We have to earn more attention state- and nationwide so we can raise more money and amplify our message. Will that guarantee victory? Nope. But it has all the potential to push the needle to the win column.

We did some things well last time, too. The effort I'm most proud of is how we addressed issues and not political parties. Whether writing postcards, sending texts and emails, or talking to voters personally, we asked what issues mattered to them. Sometimes they had a quick answer and sometimes they didn't, but it always opened up a more honest conversation about common ground that transcends party lines. That's where we're the strongest. We expand that effort to every single voter in the district and we win. Not an easy task, but we're down for the work.

...We talked to voters about issues everywhere we met them. The issues that came up the most were healthcare, education, and jobs. Close behind was traffic and affordable housing. For younger voters, the environment, gun reform, and higher education. Really, there's such a diverse population, something that Calvert has been ignoring for too long, that the issues are vast and very personal.

As for healthcare, 80,000 people in our district alone benefit from the Affordable Care Act. While a step in the right direction, it obviously hasn't gone far enough. One of the most powerful conversations I had was with an NPP voter. His wife is a strong supporter of mine, but he wasn't convinced. He came with her to one of my meet and greets and grilled me for 45 minutes about healthcare, guns, and more. After patiently answering his questions, listening to his concerns, and trying to make valid, humane points about why the current system of healthcare wasn't working, he looked at me and said, "You know, I'd gladly give up all of my guns so my neighbor doesn't have to go bankrupt over healthcare costs." THAT'S the difference we can make with real conversations.

Education is a hot button in our community because we are very suburban. Many families, if they can afford it, move here to raise families. They expect quality schools with opportunities for their children. One of the biggest issues I've found as an educator myself is that we're not spending the money necessary to provide social/emotional support for our students. In Riverside County alone, we have 3,000 children on home hospital (still enrolled in the public school, but they study at home, and a certificated teacher visits them 2-3 times per week with personal educational support) for anxiety. Anxiety. Kids are terrified to go to school. Counselors are overworked with caseloads of sometimes over 500 students. They do not have the training or expertise to do more than provide academic support and guidance. We don't invest, especially in California, in the education of our children, which makes families very vulnerable to the for-profit charter movement with their promises of the best education and results with almost zero oversight. Betsy's got to go, to say the very least. Parents want their kids to go to good schools. That's the least our children deserve.

What I followed of the Orange County campaigns (when I could, being a full-time teacher and a candidate myself) was the strength of their ground game. I made some connections with some of the activist groups in the OC who canvassed their butts off for their candidates. People all across the area, including here in the 42nd, got brave enough to leave their own backyards to talk to their friends and neighbors. That has to be repeated x1000. It's not lost on me, however, that some of the OC folks had some serious support from big names and national organizations. Our R+9 district didn't get any love from any of those fronts, even though some of the local and regional folks actually on the ground here were pushing hard to get us recognized. We're hoping to change that this time around by, again, getting out of the district and working with activists across the region and the state. I'm hopeful that dropping us to R+7 on all of our volunteer-led efforts might open a few more doors this time around. I know it's worked to get me an interview with TYT on May 28, so I'm excited about that.

Want to help Julia even the odds a little? That Turning California Bluer thermometer above... that's what that's for. Please consider making a contribution-- anything you feel comfortable with. $20.20 is what we usually suggest. You probably never heard this song; listen to it while you decide if today is the day you want to help Julia Peacock replace Ken Calvert in Congress:

Oh Yes, There Are Trumpf Fans Even In Certain Parts Of California-- Hagar Country

Indio, a small city of 85,000 in Riverside County's Coachella Valley, is 127 miles from L.A. and 98 miles from Mexicali. Somewhat over two-thirds of the population is Hispanic. Riverside County, along with San Bernardino County, part of the "Inland Empire," is a big meth-manufacturing and distribution center. We can smell it when you drive around some towns. I saw a lot of people missing a lot of teeth last time I was out there.

A friend of mine has a home in Palm Desert and she was out there a couple months ago and, for a hoot, went to see Sammy Hagar-- the Red Rocker-- when he played at the Fantasy Springs Resort Casino in Indio. Sold out crowd. George Lopez was the emcee and at one point he went down the road towards some Trump humor and tried to get the crowd into some anti-Trump give-and-take. Probably a big mistake at a Sammy Hagar concert anywhere. But my friend was shocked at the response at this one. The audience started booing Lopez and boo-ed until he got off the stage. They drove him off the stage. She told me the average age of the concert-goers was 50-something. Not kids in their 20's-- guys in their 50s!

Sammy's a Republican-- from Fontana originally-- who moved to Marin County, which is where he and I became friends. Fun guy. But a Republican. Recently Andy Greene did a piece on him in Rolling Stone, and asked him if he had any thoughts on Trump.

Oh, boy, that's the touchiest thing I've ever seen in my life because I like the fact that he's shaken up the political world, which needed to be shaken up. Everyone has been so dishonest. The politically correct thing is about to drive me out of this country. You can't do anything or someone's going to sue you. You can't say anything or an organization comes down and blackballs you. You can't talk about any race on the planet and call them by any name that's even close to sounding like you're a racist, even if you're not. You just get dogged and blackballed.

I love the fact that Trump is saying, "Fuck all you people" and just beating them up and talking shit and busting their balls. I like that part of it. But I'm not sure that's the man I want as my next president. But maybe we need somebody that radical.

Do you see a scenario where you'd vote for him over Hillary Clinton?

Oh, fuck, that's a tough one. I've got nothing against Hillary, to be honest with you. And what they're crucifying her for is just total bullshit. It's just like everything else. I mean, come on. She erased some emails or something. I know it's not good for security and all that, but I'm not a political kind of guy. So I'm going, "Hey, you all think the president of the United States-- Obama or Reagan or anybody-- never fucked up?" They all fucked up! Clinton, look what he did in there! They're human beings.

I just wish Trump wouldn't be so tough on Mexicans or the rest of the Hispanic population. From my judgement of living in Mexico and having businesses down there, they are family- and God-loving people. There's bad seeds in every single race on this planet, but the Hispanic population comes to this country because they want to work. They want to better their lives and feed their children.

And Trump says they're rapists.

That is insanity. That I have a real hard time with because I know different. But I'm sure there are people who have done everything. But if you want to take each race, and someone needs to do a survey and say, "How many did this? How many did this? How many did this?" I doubt if you'd find the Hispanics are the guilty ones on this planet or in this country. Every Hispanic I know that works for me, both in Mexico and in America, are my favorite employees, the hardest-working guys, the hardest-working ladies. They are just good people, and they carry their babies on their shoulder and go to work. They're just good people; they're not abandoning their kids and shit. That bothers me. If Trump would leave Hispanics alone, he could probably be president of the United States.

How can you tell who's a meth freak and who's a Trumpf fan?