11 Points Is Very Big

 

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of registered voters shows Trump losing in a 53% to 42% election-- an 11 point deficit. That's a lot. In the 1968 presidential election, the first time I was allowed to vote, Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey by seven-tenths of a point, about half a million votes. Carter beat Ford by 2 points. Four years later, Reagan's landslide win over Carter was 9.7 points. Clinton beat George HW Bush by 5.6 points and then beat ole Bob Dole by 8.5 points. Gore actually beat George W Bush 50,999,897 (48.4%) to 50,456,002 (47.9%) but the Republican Supreme Court blatantly stole the election for Bush. Four years later, Bush beat Kerry by 2.4 points. In 2008 Obama beat McCain by 7.2 points and then beat Romney by 3.9 points in 2012. Hillary beat Trump 65,853,514 (48.2%) to 62,984,828 (46.1%) but was denied the presidency because of the purposely anti-democratic electoral college (which should have been abolished long ago-- and would have been if it ever worked against a Republican or if the Democratic Party ever grew a pair).





Wall Street Journal reporter Eliza Collins wrote that "The poll holds warning signs for Republicans down-ballot, as well. Democrats came out ahead of Republicans by 8 points when voters were asked which party they planned to support for Congress... Biden continues to gain with groups that backed Mr. Trump in 2016, such as seniors and white women. At the same time, Mr. Trump’s lead has weakened among some core parts of his base, including white men without college degrees. A majority of voters are unhappy with the president’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Some 41% approve of his handling of Covid-19 in the latest poll, compared with 57% who disapprove."

Even in states where a statewide loss is not likely for Trump, his unpopularity in suburban districts is going to kill his GOP enablers from coast to coast. It's what the silly Beltway prognosticators-- including at the DCCC-- don't understand about a wave. Even the very worst and least-deserving-of-reelection Democrats, like Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (NY), Kendra Horn (OK), Joe Cunningham (SC), Ben McAdams (UT) and Abigail Spanberger (VA), are all probably going to be reelected because of widespread antipathy towards Trump and his lackeys.

Progressive challengers in deep red districts who the DCCC wrote off early in the cycle, are now on the verge of defeating powerful entrenched Republican incumbents-- and some have even been embraced, albeit reluctantly, by the DCCC! Look at these 7 candidates. All are running in prohibitively red districts gerrymandered to elect Republicans; all were entirely ignored by the Democratic establishment; all are in districts where Trump's support is collapsing; and all are pulling even or surpassing their Republican opponents. These are the candidates whose campaigns we should be pouring resources into right now:

• Adam Christiansen (FL-03) R+9
• Audrey Denney (CA-01) R+11
• Nate McMurray (NY-27) R+11
• Julie Oliver (TX-25) R+11
• Liam O'Mara (CA-42) R+9
• J.D. Scholten (IA-04) R+11
• Mike Siegel (TX-10) R+9

7 races with an average PVI of about R+10... all once considered out of reach and absolutely impossible, but all now very much within reach and very much possible and worth investing in. For example, Julie Oliver's "impossible race" has now been endorsed by the DCCC, which is starting to get excited about seeing her replace one of the most vile of the Trump enablers in the House. "Everyone knows big money and the ultra-wealthy have too much power in Washington," Julie told me this morning, "and I’m a political outsider who has refused all PAC money and isn’t afraid to stand up to corrupt special interests and leaders in both parties. We need to end the culture of corruption in Washington, and Roger Williams has shown a disturbing pattern of unethical behavior-- whether it’s being investigated for amending a bill to support car dealerships by letting them rent out dangerous vehicles under active safety recall, cutting to the front of the line to take millions in bailouts for his car dealership while Texas small business owners lost everything and voting to keep that hidden from the public, or abusing his position to make backroom deals on behalf big money donors."

Progressive Democrat J.D. Scholten is running a campaign in Iowa based on the same kinds of ideas. Last night he told me that "All farmers can agree that we need to enforce our antitrust laws in agriculture because right now corporations are controlling the inputs, outputs, and choices for farmers. In my first year in Congress, my goal is to introduce legislation to modernize the Packers and Stockyards Act, level the playing field for farmers, and hold corporations accountable. Meanwhile, my opponent takes corporate PAC donations from Tyson, Smithfield, and Syngenta-- the very corporations that are helping to push farmers off the farm and into bankruptcy. My strong, unwavering support for enforcing antitrust laws has earned me support from farmers across the political spectrum."

This morning California progressive Audrey Denney told me that she has "consistently been running on: 1) Forest health and fire prevention, 2) Truly universal healthcare and an emphasis on rural health, 3) COVID recovery and economic growth, 4) Rural broadband. All with the underlying theme of the essential need to get money out of politics and fire corrupt self-serving politicians. Our message is getting through to voters and we are going to win... Since we sent Rep. LaMalfa back to DC for his 4th term:

• He voted against HR 968 that would have protected people with pre-existing conditions.
• He voted against HR 3 that would have lowered prescription drug prices.
• He voted against HR 1 which among many other things, would have strengthened ethics rules for members of Congress.
• He voted against S47 wildly bipartisan public lands funding bill-- when half of his district is public lands.
• He voted against the HEROES Act twice-- even though besides desperately needed COVID relief it would have provided: $500 million for Safer Grants (Fire emergency response), $500 million for Fire Fighter Assistance grants, assistance to livestock producers (we are now losing 4th generation cattle ranches), money for rural hospitals, and rural broadband.

Rich Members Of Congress Make Economic Policy That Assists Their Own Class-- At The Expense Of Normal People

Congress is filled with multimillionaires representing the interests of their own class. This past April, OpenSectrets.org entitled a news piece by Karl Evers-Hillstrom Majority of lawmakers in 116th Congress are millionaires. It skewers policy drastically in favor of the status quo and in favor of the rich and against the working class. And not all the multimillionaires are Republicans-- not by a long-shot. The 3 wealthiest members are all reactionary Republican enemies of working families-- Senator Kelly Loeffler (R-GA), Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-MT) and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX). But the wealthiest Democrat in Congress, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), also represents his class interests and has run-up one of the most conservative voting records of any Democrat in the Senate.

"While some lawmakers are still paying off student loans," wrote Evers-Hillstrom, "others are paying off their third or fourth mortgage. The group of wealthiest members includes career politicians who boosted their portfolios over decades in Congress and recently elected lawmakers." Before Georgia Governor Brian Kemp rewarded top GOP (and Brian Kemp) campaign contributor Kelly Loeffler (with half a billion dollars and crooked as the day is long) with her very own Senate seat, the richest member of the Senate was another egregious crook, Medicare swindler Rick Scott (R-FL).

Among the wealthiest members of the House are half a dozen being challenged by working class champions this cycle:

• Mike Siegel vs Michael McCaul (R-TX)- $113 million
• Andy Ruff vs Trey Hollingsworth (R-IN)- $50.1 million
• Julie Oliver vs Roger Williams (R-TX)- $27.7 million
• Shahid Buttar vs Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)- $16.0 million
• Jon Hoadley vs Fred Upton (R-MI)- $11.0 million
• Liam O'Mara vs Crooked Ken Calvert (R-CA)- $8.0 million

Why is this important? Alan Grayson was probably the most effective member of the House when it came to bolstering the interests of the working class, but he was one of the wealthiest members of Congress, although coming from a solid working class background in the Bronx. Same with Ro Khanna and Judy Chu today-- very wealthy but dedicated to the class they came from, not to the donor class. Yesterday, Megan Cassella, writing for Politico noted that "The path toward economic recovery in the U.S. has become sharply divided, with wealthier Americans earning and saving at record levels while the poorest struggle to pay their bills and put food on the table. The result is a splintered economic picture characterized by high highs-- the stock market has hit record levels-- and incongruous low lows: Nearly 30 million Americans are receiving unemployment benefits, and the jobless rate stands at 8.4 percent. And that dichotomy, economists fear, could obscure the need for an additional economic stimulus that most say is sorely needed."

Obscure? Sure, in the eyes of people who want that need obscured, like Mitch McConnell, an arch-crook and arch-reactionary worth an estimated $40 million. McConnell has been blocking a package of pandemic assistance for several months because it assists working families too much and too directly without doing enough, in his mind, for very wealthy GOP supporters. "The trend is on track to exacerbate dramatic wealth and income gaps in the U.S., where divides are already wider than any other nation in the G-7, a group of major developed countries," wrote Cassella. "Spiraling inequality can also contribute to political and financial instability, fuel social unrest and extend any economic recession. The growing divide could also have damaging implications for President Donald Trump's reelection bid. Economic downturns historically have been harmful if not fatal for incumbent presidents, and Trump's base of working-class, blue-collar voters in the Midwest are among the demographics hurting the most. The White House has worked to highlight a rapid economic recovery as a primary reason to reelect the president, but his support on the issue is slipping: Nearly 3 in 5 people say the economy is on the wrong track, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found."

"The economic inequities that began before the downturn have only worsened under this failed presidency," Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said Friday. "No one thought they'd lose their job for good or see small businesses shut down en masse. But that kind of recovery requires leadership-- leadership we didn't have, and still don't have."

Recent economic data and surveys have laid bare the growing divide. Americans saved a stunning $3.2 trillion in July, the same month that more than 1 in 7 households with children told the U.S. Census Bureau they sometimes or often didn’t have enough food. More than a quarter of adults surveyed have reported paying down debt faster than usual, according to a new AP-NORC poll, while the same proportion said they have been unable to make rent or mortgage payments or pay a bill.

And while the employment rate for high-wage workers has almost entirely recovered-- by mid-July it was down just 1 percent from January-- it remains down 15.4 percent for low-wage workers, according to Harvard’s Opportunity Insights economic tracker.

...Trump and his allies have seized on the strength of the stock market and positive growth in areas like manufacturing and retail sales as evidence of what they have been calling a "V-shaped recovery": a sharp drop-off followed by rapid growth.

But economists say that argument fails to see the larger picture, one where roughly a million laid-off workers are filing for unemployment benefits each week, millions more have seen their pay and hours cut, and permanent job losses are rising. The economy gained 1.4 million jobs in August, the Labor Department reported Friday, but the pace of job growth has slowed at a time when less than half of the jobs lost earlier this year have been recovered.





Some economists have begun to refer to the recovery as "K-shaped," because while some households and communities have mostly recovered, others are continuing to struggle-- or even seeing their situation deteriorate further.

“If you just look at the top of the K, it’s a V-- but you can’t just look at what’s above water,” said Claudia Sahm, director of macroeconomic policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. “There could be a whole iceberg underneath it that you’re going to plow into.”

The burden is falling heavily on the poorest Americans, who are more likely to be out of work and less likely to have savings to lean on to weather the crisis. While recessions are always hardest on the poor, the coronavirus downturn has amplified those effects because shutdowns and widespread closures have wiped out low-wage jobs in industries like leisure and hospitality.

"The burden is falling heavily on the poorest Americans," is a funny way of putting it. Is God making that happen? The luck of the draw? Immutable economic forces? Or is it policy directed by the members of Congress representing their own class? I asked Mike Siegel, a former teacher, union organizer and civil rights attorney, currently running for a central Texas House seat occupied by one of the wealthiest men in Congress, Michael McCaul (who married into a radio broadcasting fortune). "Everyone witnessed McCaul and this administration pull trillions of dollars out of thin air to backstop Wall Street and big corporations while they threw Main Street under the bus, said Mike this morning. "That's because their real constituency is the donors who fund their elections, plus opportunities for self enrichment. The wealthy donor class got their bailout and continue to do quite well while tens of millions of hard-working Americans are on the verge of homelessness with an active eviction crisis. This is not new for McCaul considering over 70% of his campaign is funded by Corporate PACs and special interests, and his personal wealth has increased over 940% while in public office. He voted to deregulate big banks while he had millions invested in companies like CitiGroup, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase. He refused to increase consumer credit card protections while heavily invested in Visa. He repeatedly worked to deregulate the securities industry, a top campaign donor group that he has millions invested in. We have to stop this kind of corruption by voting them out."

Shahid Buttar is running for a House seat occupied by the only Democrat on the list-- and he's holding her accountable in a way she never had been before. "My opponent in the general election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi," he told me this morning, "has relentlessly promoted her class interests while abandoning the needs of Americans struggling to put food on the table and stay in their homes. She opposes universal healthcare, rent and mortgage cancellation, the proposed federal jobs guarantee, and a long overdue increase in the minimum wage. Meanwhile, Pelosi outrageously prioritized tax breaks averaging $1.6 million each for over 43,000 tax filers who claim more than $1 million a year in annual income. Our federal spending priorities are backwards. And corporate Democrats-- led by Pelosi-- are a big part of the problem." If you like what Buttar has to say, please consider contributing to his campaign here.

Who's Less Unfit To Be President? What A Terrible Way To Decide How To Cast Your Ballot--Shouldn't We Have A Neither Of The Above Option?

Normally, sitting presidents are reelected and one of the reasons is that voters view them as being experienced and prepared for the difficult job. Hilariously, a new poll published by USA Today shows that only 37% of voters say Trump "has the right experience to be president" while 67% say that Biden does.

All cycle long I've been warning that if Biden becomes the Democratic nominee-- and that, unfortunately for the country, looks like a fait accompli-- instead of a debate about ideas, voters would have to face a debate about whose family was more repulsive, about which candidate is more corrupt, about which candidate lies more and about which candidate is more senile. Both have disgusting families; both are corrupt and compulsive liars and each is way too senile and brain-impaired to be president. Well... the senility thing is starting to become a mainstream media thing.

Axios's Margaret Talev reputed that "Senility is becoming an overt line of attack for the first time in a modern U.S. presidential campaign. As Americans live longer and work later into life and there's more awareness about the science of aging, we're also seeing politicians test the boundaries of electability. Biden is 77; Trump, now 74, already is the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency."

Trump, who has been increasingly mentally incapacitated in the last couple of years is ramping up his projections that Biden is also senile (which he appears to be). Now Biden is using the same line of attack against Trump, asserting that Trump "doesn’t seem to be cognitively aware of what’s going on" with his own briefings about Russia and U.S. service members. Inserting the word "cognitively" wasn't gratuitous by Biden's speech-writer. It implies that Trump is undergoing mental deterioration (which he is).

"At the same news conference where he took a swipe at Trump," Talev wrote, "Biden was asked by a reporter if he has been tested for cognitive decline. 'I've been tested and I'm constantly tested,' Biden responded, adding that 'I can hardly wait to compare my cognitive capability to the cognitive capability of the man I'm running against.' A Trump campaign Twitter feed played back the clip and asked, 'Did Biden take a cognitive test? What were the results? Why is he getting frequently tested?' Biden campaign advisers tell Axios' Alexi McCammond and Hans Nichols that the testing Biden was talking about is the past 15 months on the campaign trail and that they see Trump's attacks, in psychological terms, as 'projection.' They also said Biden wasn't previewing a new theme, just highlighting Trump's attempt to distract from his own vulnerabilities."

Historian Julian Zelizer told Zalev that she "thinks the Trump 'presidency has shown us that somebody's mental state really matters. 'With each of these candidates, the question has been raised-- Trump because of everything he's said and done' and remarks that often are 'just a mishmash of words. Biden, there's questions, more subtle I think, about he doesn't finish every sentence, or during the debates he'd pause and seem to have trouble thinking about what he wants to say. Those are the moments that then become questions.'... Though they have different personalities, both Trump and Biden are known for speaking off the cuff, opening themselves to verbal gaffes and criticisms of rambling."

So why are 40% of Americans still supporting Trump? Robert Reich had a good answer yesterday:

What The Pandemic Lays Bare: We Have Become, In Saagar Enjeti's Words, "A Sclerotic, Rotten Society"

After midnight. congressional negotiators and the White House reached an agreement on the $2 trillion relief/stimulus package. There will be a vote on it later today. What did the Democrats achieve by stopping the Trump-McConnell first iteration of the bill? It now includes more funding for hospitals and health care workers; expanded and enhanced unemployment benefits (by 13 weeks) covering individuals who are not currently covered by traditional unemployment assistance and with full salaries for workers; and some semblance of oversight-- I'll believe it when someone catches Trump trying to steal some of it-- over the $400 billion slush fund for corporate America. Under the terms of the deal an "independent" inspector general and a congressional oversight board would be in charge of scrutinizing the lending decisions out of that pot of money. There is also a proviso that companies accepting aid from taxpayers cannot reward shareholders and top executives through stock buybacks.

Earlier that day, the Washington Post reported that Trump has finally "agreed to allow enhanced scrutiny over a massive loan program that is a centerpiece of the Senate’s $2 trillion coronavirus economic package, taking steps to address a major Democratic concern and potentially pave the way for a vote." They had hope it would have been yesterday, but are happy enough that it will come today both in the Senate and the House.

Señor Trumpanzee had "already said where he wants some of the money to go, promising assistance to cruise ship companies, for example, that have operations in Miami. And when he was asked Monday evening who would perform oversight of the program, Trump responded, 'I’ll be the oversight.' But during closed-door negotiations on Capitol Hill, White House officials have agreed to allow an independent inspector general and an oversight board to scrutinize the lending decisions."

McConnell's package was stuffed full of Republican Party agenda items-- bailouts for corporations primarily-- and Pelosi's wasn't nearly as terrible but was still bullshit. Who can resist including their own priorities when a must-pass-package around 2 trillion dollars is on the line? An honest broker, perhaps? That leaves out McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, Hoyer, McCarthy and, obviously Trump and Mnuchin. The Democrats accuse McConnell of putting together a corporate slush fund. The Republicans accuse Pelosi of trying to pass the Green New Deal (part of a "Democratic wish list"). If only!

McConnell's bill was 247 pages long. Pelosi's is 1,432 pages. Let's compare:

McConnell wanted to give direct payments of $1,200 to individual Americans making less than $75,000 annually, and $2,400 for eligible married couples making less than $150,000 combined, with an additional $500 for every child. The amount of money is reduced by $5 for every $100 that a person earns over $75,000, so Americans earning more than $99,000 will get nothing. Pelosi's bill is pretty much the same in that way except that it increases the figure per individual to $1,500. Her bill also waives $10,000 in federal student loan payments. McConnell addresses education by allowing Betsy DeVos to defer student loan payments and by allowing students who were forced to drop out of school due to coronavirus to keep their Pell grants.

After that the two bills go off in different directions. McConnell is unreasonably generous to corporate America, no strings attached:

• $50 billion in loan guarantees for passenger air carriers.
• $8 billion for cargo air carriers.
• $150 billion for other large businesses.
• $300 billion for small businesses. (Pelosi wants $500 billion here.)

Pelosi's plan is far more ambitious, dedicating $4 billion in grant funding to help states with upcoming elections and nationally mandates 15 days of early voting and no-excuse absentee vote-by-mail, including mailing a ballot to all registered voters in an emergency, something violently opposed by Republicans, who always oppose expanding the franchise. Things that will never stay in the final bill include canceling several of Trump's executive orders that labor complains have weakened public sector unions' ability to engage in collective bargaining; requiring companies receiving federal assistance during the pandemic to institute a $15 minimum wage; and creating new carbon offset guidelines for airlines, with a long-term goal of reducing jet fuel emissions by 50% by 2050.

Pelosi's bill also allocates $150 billion to support hospitals, local health centers and government-funded medical programs, with an additional $80 billion in low-interest loans to hospitals; provides child care assistance to health care workers and emergency personnel; temporarily provides $600 per week to unemployed workers affected by the pandemic. Self-employed workers, Americans whose contracts were canceled, and new entrants to the job market would also be eligible; expands paid sick leave and family medical leave, as well as gives more money to food-safety benefits; dedicates $20 billion to reimbursing the U.S. Postal Service for lost revenue, and forgives USPS debt; and one that McConnell is likely to approve of: creating a $200 billion stabilization fund for states and $15 billion for local governments through the Community Development Block Grant program. The legislation also authorizes the Federal Reserve to purchase state and local government bonds.

In an OpEd for Newsweek yesterday, Robert Reich wrote that Republicans are helping corporations to exploit the crisis. "Airlines," he wrote, "are big enough to get their own loans from banks at rock-bottom interest rates. Their planes and landing slots are more than adequate collateral. Why do airlines deserve to be bailed out? Over the last decade, they spent 96 percent of their free cash flow, including billions in tax savings from the Trump tax cut, to buy back shares of their own stock. This boosted executive bonuses and pleased wealthy investors but did nothing to strengthen the airlines for the long term. Meanwhile, the four biggest carriers gained so much market power they jacked up prices on popular routes and slashed services (remember legroom and free bag checks?)." He continued, echoing what many frequent fliers feel about the airline companies that McConnell is so eager to bail out at taxpayer expense:

United CEO Oscar Munoz warned that if Congress doesn't bailout the airline by the end of March, United will start firing its employees. But even if bailed out, what are the odds United would keep paying all its workers if the pandemic forced it to stop flying? The bailout would be for shareholders and executives, not employees.

While generous toward airlines and other industries, the Republican bill is absurdly stingy toward people, stipulating a one-time payment of up to $1,200 for every adult and $500 per child. Some 64 million households with incomes below $50,000 would get as little as $600. This will do almost nothing to help job-losers pay their mortgages, rents and other bills for the duration of the crisis, expected to be at least the next three months.

The Republican coronavirus bill is about as Burring as legislation can be-- exposing the underlying structure of power in America as clearly as Burr's stock trades. In this national crisis, it's just as morally repulsive.

Take a look at how big corporations are treating their hourly workers in this pandemic and you see more Burring.

Walmart, the largest employer in America, doesn't give its employees paid sick leave, and limits its 500,000 part-time workers to 48 hours paid time off per year. This Burring policy is now threatening countless lives. (On one survey, 88 percent of Walmart employees report sometimes coming to work when sick.)

None of the giants of the fast-food industry-- McDonald's, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Duncan Donuts, Wendy's, Taco Bell, Subway-- gives their workers paid sick leave, either.

Amazon, one of the richest corporations in the world, which paid almost no taxes last year, is offering unpaid time off for workers who are sick and just 2 weeks paid leave for workers who test positive for the virus. Meanwhile, it demands that its employees put in mandatory overtime.

And here's the most Burring thing of all: These corporations have made sure they and other companies with more than 500 employees are exempt from the requirement in the House coronavirus bill that employers provide paid sick leave.

At a time when almost everyone feels burdened and fearful, the use of power and privilege to exploit the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of others is morally intolerable.

We are all in this together, or should be. Whatever form it takes, Burring must be stopped.

The Nature Of Conservatism-- Profiting From Societal Adversity

McConnell is a master of one thing and one thing only-- obstruction

I'm not going to argue about conservative, greed-obsessed businessmen rushing headlong into markets to profit from societal disruption. It's not illegal and anyone who ever thought a conservative had an predisposition towards ethical or Christian fundamental values was just kidding themselves anyway. My beef, though, is with conservative greed-obsessed elected officials. What I expect from private citizens of a conservative bent is not what I expect from conservative public officials. Nor should you. In two separate polls, a majority of North Carolina voters say Senator Richard Burr, who said in 2016 that he wouldn't run again, should resign for selling $1.6 million in hotel and other stocks based on inside information he obtained as chair of the Senate Intel Committee. He was only one of nearly a dozen conservatives in Congress who were doing the same thing-- selling stocks before the deluge-- although one, right-wing congressman Rob Wittman (R-VA) ran out as soon as he had some inside info and bought thousands of dollars of stock in AbbVie, Inc, which makes antiviral drugs. (His greed and lack of ethics, though, did him no good; he lost money too.) Robert Reich yesterday: Senators Loeffler and Burr-- and any other senator if found to have benefited from insider information about the pandemic, including Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)-- must resign immediately."

Last night the Washington Post reported that "Trump’s private business has shut down six of its top seven revenue-producing clubs and hotels because of restrictions meant to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, potentially depriving Trump’s company of millions of dollars in revenue. Those closures come as Trump is considering easing restrictions on movement sooner than federal public health experts recommend, in the name of reducing the virus’s economic damage." Trump had two reactions. First was to tell Mnuchin that a bailout for [his] hotels and golf courses had to be included in any stimulus package and second was that he's opening the economy again, no matter what it does to the efforts to flatten the curve and save lives.

And now Mitch McConnell is leading Senate Republicans to pass a stimulus package that serves their own partisan interests and the desires of the donor class while screwing over working families, the same way they did in 2008. Georgia Senate candidate TeresaTomlinson saw it the same way I did. Yesterday she sent her supporters a note that included this: "Now, amidst a global pandemic, Republican senators are committing insider trading while they try to score a $500 billion slush fund for a corporate bailout that would help their donors. The world’s challenges are too important to continue with failed Republican leadership. We have to defeat the Republicans this November to fix the Affordable Care Act, guarantee universal healthcare, and protect people-- not corporations-- from the coronavirus pandemic."

But wait! Won't Trump fix everything now that we're going from "It's a hoax" to resurrection Sunday in April?

Also Yesterday, Tom Neuburger pointed out the crossroads the country has come to: a collision between two competing imperatives-- "does the nation serve the pathological wants of the few who control it or the immediate and existential needs of the many who live in it?"

The few-- the bankers and profiteers; investors and CEOs of all kinds and stripes; their well-paid enablers in the media and professional classes-- think the coronavirus emergency will pass and "business" (our modern, rapacious way of doing it) will eventually return to normal.

Thus for them, the current crisis represents once-in-a-generation opportunity for theft on the grandest of scales, the plundering of public goods and control in the time of greatest emergency. They think this theft, like the many similar others that went before it, will occur with no consequence for them and only long-term consequences for others-- thefts like the 2000 election, which cost them nothing while adding to their power and credibility, but left a great many others broken or dead; or the theft of family fortunes and futures during the 2008 global meltdown, losses that even today only they have recovered from.

...[T]he massive loss of wealth by the working class after 2008-- wealth they have still not regained-- happened slowly, and in a nation filled with "back to normal" TV propaganda (you don't see the struggling depicted on spry network dramas and comedies) their constant pain has by now been normalized and accepted as just the way things are "for some people." (Those "some people," it must be noted, put Donald Trump in the White House.)

...On whose side will government throw its weight? On the side of the pathological few or the side of the suffering many?

The answer to that question will determine the future of the nation. Will we more resemble the country of FDR and his widely loved government for the people, or that of Louis XVI and his overthrown government of the people. A crossroads indeed. Will the national needs of the many be honored and met? Or will the pathological few light a flame that burns us all?

Now listen carefully to Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), a progressive, not a conservative. Ignore the imbecile talking head asking him questions, but listen to what he is prioritizing.





Crackpot Republicans in Ohio and Texas are breaking the law by using the pandemic as cover to prohibit all abortions. That's what conservatives have always done and will always do-- look for ways to push their toxic, anti-family agenda whenever they can take advantage of an opportunity, no matter how dire.

Today, Bernie, reacting to the decision by the Trump Regime's FDA to grant Gilead Sciences a seven-year monopoly for antiviral medication remdesivir for potential treatment of the coronavirus, said "It is truly outrageous that after taxpayers put tens of millions of dollars into developing remdesivir, Trump’s FDA is exploiting a law reserved for rare diseases to privatize a drug to treat a pandemic virus. The Trump Administration must rescind this corporate giveaway to Gilead and make any treatment and vaccine free for everybody. Now is not the time for profiteering in the pharmaceutical industry. Now is the time to bring our scientists together to develop and produce the best treatment for the coronavirus as quickly as possible. When Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine 65 years ago, he understood the tremendous value it would have for all of humanity, and he refused to patent it. Right now, we must put human life above corporate profit. We cannot give pharmaceutical corporations a monopoly on treatments that could save millions of people during this crisis."

Congress Passes Free Coronavirus Testing-- Remember The Names of The 40 Extreme Right Republicans Who Balked

On Friday night, the NY Times Benjamin Mueller reported that UK prime minister Boris Johnson "once said his political hero was the mayor in the film Jaws, praising him for defying mass hysteria to keep the beaches open after a constituent is eaten by a shark. As the coronavirus now stampedes across Britain and much of the world, Mr. Johnson is heeding the same principle, spurning the mass closures that have become commonplace across Europe and gambling his political future on a more restrained approach. That strategy has startled some epidemiologists, drawn criticism from a former health secretary and political ally, and prompted angry demands that Mr. Johnson’s government reveal more of its reasoning." A few hours later... Mass gatherings to be banned as Boris Johnson makes coronavirus U-turn. No more concerts, no more sporting events, no more screenings of Jaws. "The Prime Minister decided to ban major events just 24 hours after insisting he would not be following Scotland’s lead in outlawing crowds of more than 500 people. It came after the Premier League had taken matters into its own hands by announcing the suspension of the football season until next month and the London Marathon was postponed until October by its organisers."

Events on the ground are moving more rapidly and more decisively than national leaders, who have largely become used to living with their heads up their asses. U.K. economics writer, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, noted, for example, that the financial aspects of the pandemic are likely to be far more than just a disruption. "Global asset markets," he wrote, "are priced for a light recession. They are not priced for a deep downturn, let alone a series of seismic aftershocks that expose the fragility of an international system with record debt ratios near 322 percent of GDP ($257 trillion). The United Nations’ economics arm said a toxic mix of asset price deflation and debt distress could now set off a ‘vicious downward spiral’ if world leaders fail to stem the contagion... The dramatic exodus of funds from emerging markets over recent days exceeds the worst capital flight of 2008 and is fast morphing into worldwide contagion, the top banking watchdog has warned. 'We worry a global that sudden stop in financing is beginning to emerge,' said the Institute of International Finance (IIF) in Washington. It warned that a multitude of shocks are combining with a commodity crash and mounting stress in the US bond and funding markets. The danger is a confluence of three crises erupting simultaneously and feeding on each other: a violent reversal of flows to emerging markets; a blow-up in the BBB and high-yield segments of the bond market; and a fresh "Club Med" funding crisis triggered by fears of a wrenching economic contraction in Italy."

Late last night (12:51 AM to be precise), the House voted on HR 6201, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. It needed a 2/3 majority and it got it-- after Trump tweeted his approval-- 363-40. Who the hell were the 40, you ask? All fringe right extremists who would take great pleasure in watching their constituents die in the streets, walking freak shows like Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Glenn Grothman (R-WI), Jody Hice (R-GA), Tom Emmer (head of the NRCC-MN), Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), Gym Jordan (R-OH), Jason Smith (R-MO) and, obviously, Steve King (R-IA). Many more fringe-extremists would have voted against it but, like Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Mark Meadows (R-NC), John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) they're in quarantine with coronavirus.

And speaking of Jason Smith, a self-loathing-- and humanity-loathing-- closet case from southeast Missouri where it meets Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky, the progressive Democrat running against him this year, Kathy Ellis, sent out a statement a few hours after the vote that she's "disappointed, but not surprised, to see that Jason Smith voted against H.R. 6201, which provides paid emergency sick leave and free testing in light of the threat of Coronavirus. Since Smith was elected in 2013, he’s made it clear that he only works on behalf of his corporate donors, and his vote against working people today makes this even clearer. I’m running to give my District a fair shot of survival. Since Smith has taken office, we’ve seen five of our hospitals close, our local jobs leave, and our infrastructure crumble. We need someone who will protect working families across Missouri, and it’s clear that Smith isn’t up to the task. I’ve been a Social Worker for nearly 40 years, and I’ve spent my entire career working in support of working families. It’s time for new leadership in my District. Rep. Smith should be ashamed of his vote."

J.D. Scholten, also watched with dismay as his opponent, Steve King, voted against the bill. "COVID-19 has already taken the lives of 41 Americans," he said in a statement yesterday. "Due to the lack of widespread testing, thousands more could already be infected. Experts say 200,000 to 1.7 million Americans could die. This is not hyperbole or overreaction. We need to meet the weight and seriousness of this pandemic with the full force of our government’s resources. This is the time for unwavering support of our workers, kids, and families. Yet, Steve King cast a vote against this bipartisan legislation that would provide free COVID-19 testing, paid leave, expanded food benefits and unemployment insurance, and protections for front-line health care workers. This is a shameful, selfish, and entitled vote. Rural America, especially Iowa, faces unique vulnerabilities to this public health crisis. Our population is older, sicker, and poorer. More people are uninsured and under-insured and lack access to healthcare and paid leave. Our few and far between hospitals and clinics could easily be overwhelmed by a large volume of patients. Steve King’s vote is a slap in the face to every single Iowan as he enjoys paid leave, health insurance, access to healthcare, and a six figure salary without sitting on a single committee."

Trump tweeted this morning "Good teamwork between Republicans & Democrats as the House passes the big CoronaVirus Relief Bill. People really pulled together. Nice to see!" No word on the 40 who want to see death and destruction in his party or on McConnell's dangerous stalling tactics. Trump's mouthpiece in the House, Kevin McCarthy added, "I think this was a very good sign of bipartisanship and working together, that we can overcome this virus. We’ve done much bigger things before."

Ted Lieu, co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC), sent out a statement to his constituents about what the bill is and what they can expect from it. Dozens of other Democrats followed Lieu's lead. This is what he sent out:

“I am pleased the House of Representatives passed the Family First Coronavirus Response Act, so that we can take another critical step to help Americans as we combat this deadly illness. To mitigate the harm of the coronavirus, we must ensure anyone who needs a test can get one at no cost. Additionally, American families and workers must have protections should they get sick or have to change their work arrangements because of the coronavirus. I’m pleased that this bill addresses those issues, in addition to others. We have to give our first responders the resources and support they need to save lives. Stopping the coronavirus requires all of us, regardless of party, to work together for the collective good. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this bill quickly so we can mitigate this deadly virus.”

The legislation includes:

• Free coronavirus testing
• Emergency paid leave
• Enhanced unemployment insurance
• Strengthened food security initiatives
• Increased federal funds for Medicaid 

McConnell adjourned the Senate before they could act on the bill and this morning he issued a statement saying he and his backward caucus "will need to carefully review" the bill, passed by the House and approved by Trump. "But I believe the vast majority of Senators in both parties will agree we should act swiftly to secure relief for American workers, families, and small businesses." Swiftly for a turtle is different for swiftly for a human.

Colorado Was A Political Bright Spot On Tuesday-- Will It Be On Saturday As Well?

Tuesday night was pretty good for progressives in Colorado. Bernie won a lion's share of delegates and had the most votes. He and Elizabeth together had a majority from Coloradans:

• Bernie- 273,677 (36.3%)
• Status Quo Joe- 175,820 (23.2%)
• Bloomberg- 157,755 (20.8%)
• Elizabeth- 130,380 (17.2%)
• Tulsi- 8,586 (1.1%)

Voters wanted Health care for all, an economy that works for everyone and the Green New Deal. Wednesday morning the progressive in the Senate race, Andrew Romanoff, noted that "Exit polls found Democratic voters favored single-payer health care and major economic reform. In a poll released last week, a huge majority-- 93%-- also backed the Green New Deal. " That's especially important for Romanoff since Chuck Schumer is running Frackenlooper-- who is a status quo/anti-change candidate and way to the right of where Colorado voters are-- against him.

Andrew, who has been endorsed by Blue America sent an e-mail out to Colorado voters pointing out that all that progressive policy adhesion in his state is " good news not just for our campaign but for every American who wants to see real change in Washington" and pointing out that his bold progressive platform was "crafted not in the Senate cloakroom but here in Colorado. Last night’s results show our message is resonating."

Colorado's Senate primary is June 30 but this coming Saturday, March 7, Colorado Democrats will caucus to determine which of the 10 candidates will be on the ballot. Voters elect delegates to go to an April 18 assembly, determining who makes the primary ballot. Candidates need the backing of 30% of the delegates to get on the ballot.




What kind of a senator would Frackenlooper be? A really bad one-- like one of the worst, on a par with Trump-friendly right-wingers Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Watch the video of him backing down on backing-- and signing-- a bill to ban high-capacity magazines. He told the sheriffs he never expected the bill to pass-- and suggested he might not have signed it if he’d known it would cause so much "commotion." He blamed members of his own his staff for making him do it! Is that what Frackenlooper means by leadership? No wonder he's so scared to debate Andrew Romanoff!

Tuesday night, Chuck Schumer got his pick for the North Carolina Senate pick, repeat loser, Cal Cunningham, who is likely to lose again in November. North Carolina voters also decided to vote against Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal and free state colleges by picking Status Quo Joe over Bernie. Coloradans are a savvier bunch and are less likely to let Chuck Schumer saddle them with a loser. Please consider contributing to Andrew Romanoff's campaign by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Senate thermometer on the right and giving what you can.

Friends of mine in Montana tell me that Governor Steve Bullock may be overly cautious sometimes but that he's way more progressive than he came across as on his disastrous and short-lived presidential run-- kind of the opposite of Frackenlooper, who's even worse than he appeared when he was on the national stage. So... despite Schumer popping a boner when he heard that Bullock's going to run after all, the country may well have just gotten a potential boon. One old friend in Bozeman told me not to worry about him being terrible in DC. "There's no way he'll ever be anything like Sinema or Machin or even Chris Coons... Did you know he was formerly a labor lawyer?

Obama seems to have persuaded him to do it-- and none too soon. The filing deadline is Monday. The state isn't as red as its prohibitive R+11 PVI would suggest. Last cycle Democrat Jon Testa beat multimillionaire Matt Rosendale 253,876 (50.3%) to 235,963 (48.8%) and even an unimaginably horrible, unelectable Democrat for the state's one congressional seat, Kathleen Williams managed to take 233,284 votes (46.2%) against Republican Greg Gianforte. In 2016, though Montanans sensibly wanted nothing to do with Hillary Clinton-- Trump beat her 274,120 (56.5%) to 174,521 (36.0%)-- Bullock himself was reelected governor 250,846 (50.2%) to 232,080 (46.4%). So, like in so many states, Hillary was a drag on the ticket but Bullock managed to win around 80,000 voters who refused to vote for her against Greg Gianforte.

Trump's approval rating has plummeted 18 points since he was inaugurated, so the Republicans' unremarkable incumbent, Steve Daines, isn't likely to be rescued by Trump. Daines, in fact, has been a real rubber stamp Trump-enabler.

Do Conservative Democrats Believe In Unity And Solidarity? Of Course They Don't

Sarah Ferris and Heather Caygle, reporting for Politico yesterday, wrote about how congressional Democrats-- most far to the right of Bernie-- are planning how to run with him at the top of the ticket. Some-- like way-to-the-right Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Joe Cunningham (SC) have said they flat out will refuse to back him. Many others from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party want to write their own less progressive platform to run on. Ferris and Caygle wrote that "even as some Democrats privately test-drive rhetoric for sharing a Sanders ticket-- like how to talk up expanded health care, rural broadband or new workforce programs-- there are others who say they could have to strongly distance themselves from the Vermont independent if he wins the party’s nod."

“I’ve been consistent from day one that the answers to the problems that we all agree that we face today, the answers are not socialist economic policies,” said Rep. Max Rose of New York, a Mike Bloomberg backer, whose district went for President Donald Trump by 10 points in 2016. “That’s just not the case. And I stand by that.”

Sanders’ biggest supporters on Capitol Hill say he plans to make a concerted push to appeal to more of his congressional colleagues after Super Tuesday’s high-stakes contests. Much of that outreach, they say, will go toward finding common ground on policy and calming jitters among endangered House Democrats that a Sanders nomination would mean a down-ballot bloodbath.

Sanders maintains a relatively small group of allies on Capitol Hill, with just nine Democrats endorsing him in both chambers. But his supporters say momentum could shift toward him this week, with Sanders expected to do well Tuesday in delegate-rich states like California and Texas, potentially putting him on a path to winning the nomination.

“Everyone in this building is very good at politics, and it doesn’t take a lot to see that Sanders has a very good chance,” Rep. Ro Khanna of California, a national co-chair of Sanders’ campaign.

Khanna said some Democrats have approached him with concerns about Sanders’ bid, and that in some cases, he has relayed them directly to Sanders as they look to build a Capitol Hill coalition.

“We want to make members realize that whatever wing of the party they’re on, they’re welcome in the coalition,” Khanna said, adding that some of Sanders’ proposals-- like building rural broadband and investing in infrastructure-- could appeal to more moderate Democrats who have otherwise stayed far away from a platform centered on “Medicare for All” and a “Green New Deal.”

“People are beginning to see there could be a strong upside to a Bernie nomination as well, even though I understand many of them might be a little nervous,” added Rep. Jesús “Chuy” Garcia (D-Ill.), who officially endorsed Sanders last week.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is acutely aware of the anxieties swirling inside her caucus. The speaker has even declared that while the party will unite around its nominee, House Democrats will run on their own agenda-- one that helps them hold the GOP-leaning seats that delivered her majority in 2018.

“My responsibility is to make sure that those we elected last time return to Congress, keep the majority and add to our numbers,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday.

“We have to win in certain, particular areas,” she added. “We’re not about a popular vote in the country or in particular states in terms of the Electoral College. We are district by district.”

...Democrats may disagree on whether to back Medicare for All or focus on strengthening the Affordable Care Act, for example. But the Trump administration and several GOP-led states are currently in court trying to completely dismantle the Obama-era health law.

“I think the campaign will be an opportunity to contrast where Republicans stand on all these issues,” Cicilline said.

Several moderate Democrats have said they would focus on Sanders’ health care message-- the biggest plank of his platform and a key driver of his base.

“I think health care is a good direction, I just don’t like how he wants to get there. Same with some of his other ideas,” said Rep. Tom O’Halleran (D-AZ), whose district barely went for Hillary Clinton over Trump in 2016, and who has not yet endorsed a candidate.

“There are certainly parts of his agenda that are attractive to some people,” said freshman Rep. Susan Wild of Pennsylvania, noting the idea of universal health coverage is popular in parts of her purple district. But she said Democrats would need to find a way to achieve that outcome that doesn’t “burn the house down in the process.”

“I’m seeing it kind of like the process of legislation,” Wild added. “There’s going to have to be compromise all the way around.”

But not every Democrat is so optimistic that they can run with-- or run away from-- Sanders’ message and the “socialist” sobriquet Republicans are already trying to pin on every Democrat.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC), who offered a high-profile endorsement of Joe Biden ahead of the former vice president’s landslide South Carolina win, warned of “down-ballot carnage” if Sanders is the Democratic nominee.

“We want to see somebody on the ticket that will allow us to expand our numbers. Not having to run some kind of a rearguard campaign in order to keep from being tarnished with a label,” Clyburn said Friday on CNN.

The fears about keeping the House are most pronounced among the several dozen Democrats running in the most competitive seats, particularly freshmen, who have never run on the same ballot as Trump.

Freshman Rep. Tom Malinowski of New Jersey, whose district went narrowly for Clinton in 2016, said he would go into his race “with the same degree of confidence” regardless of who leads the ticket.

But he said Democrats would have a much simpler message-- and better odds of beating Trump-- if they have someone other than Sanders on the ballot.

“All we’ve got to do is to say, we’re not messing with the economy, we’re going to improve health care, and we’re going to give you a president who tells the truth, respects the law, and can be a good moral example for your kids,” Malinowski said.

“Why we would risk this extraordinary opportunity by nominating someone who has a tendency to divide our own side is beyond me,” he said, though he added that he would “absolutely” support Sanders if he is the nominee despite their differences.

Still, it’s not clear that Sanders will be welcome on the trail with the most vulnerable House Democrats.

“We don’t know who the nominee is going to be yet, so I think that’s kind of forward thinking,” said freshman Rep. Gil Cisneros, who flipped a GOP district in Southern California, after being asked multiple times whether he would campaign with Sanders. “But again, whoever the Democratic nominee is, Democrats in my district are going to rally around that individual.”

Cisneros, basically a waste of a seat, was a professional potato chip taster who won the lottery and self-funded $9,252,762 to win the primary and then the open-seat general. He quickly joined the New Dems, quickly started voting abysmally and now has an "F" rating from ProgressivePunch. This cycle-- despite immense PAC contributions-- he's being outraised by Republican Young Kim. Yesterday he endorsed Biden.

Does it feel odd to you that there are no progressive members of Congress saying they won't vote for Status Quo Joe if he-- not to mention Republican oligarch Michael Bloomberg-- manages to steal the election at the convention? And that there are no progressive congressional Democrats talking to the media about how they will have to run on a more progressive platform than the pile of status quo garbage either Biden or Bloomberg will put together?

Last week, Mehdi Hasan asked at The Intercept if we can all agree that everything we were told about Bernie by the press, the pundits, the politicians was wrong. "And not just wrong, but completely, utterly, demonstrably, embarrassingly, catastrophically wrong." Hasan's post was particularly looking at electability but also looked at the smear that Bernie's "policies are extreme and unpopular." Bernie, he wrote "is a socialist who backs radical policies too far to the left of not just the electorate as a whole, but even mainstream and moderate Democratic voters. Yet in Iowa and New Hampshire... a clear majority of caucus-goers and primary voters backed Medicare for All over the current private insurance system. In Nevada, too, 6 in 10 Democrats said they supported a Sanders-style single-payer health care system. At a national level, a (narrower) majority of Americans support Medicare for All, according to the latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, then, it is Sanders, and not Biden or Bloomberg, who is the real centrist candidate-- in terms of pushing policies popular with most Americans."

A few days later, Scott Lanman and Stephanie Flanders went further, reporting that world-renowned economist Thomas Piketty, has explained how Bernie's agenda will be good for the American economy than the no fundamental change agenda Biden and Bloomberg and the transpartisan elites have in mind.

At the start of the 20th century, Sweden-- now held up as an egalitarian country-- was entirely controlled by wealthy elites and voting rights were determined by property. Within a very short space of time, and with little economic disruption, it became the social democratic nation that we now know.

This precedent bodes well for Mr. Sanders' policy goals of reforming American capitalism, Piketty suggested.





In his new book Capital and Ideology, Piketty examines the relationship between inequality and ideology, and how they shape each other.

The Sanders campaign has promised systemic change through economic policy to tackle inequality-- higher taxes of the rich, a wealth tax, a minimum wage, and “workplace democracy.”

Piketty, like Mr Sanders, advocates a progressive tax on wealth. “Remember that the U.S. is actually the country that invented progressive taxation of income and wealth in the 20th century,” he said.

Citing 30 years of data showing that U.S. workers have not seen any real per capita growth in that period, Piketty also said no country has a national determinism about economics and the US is not necessarily wed to its current system. Things can change very quickly.

“Warren and Sanders are not radicals, they are moderate social democrats by European standards… and the ideology of the U.S. is changing,” he said.

Piketty’s first book, 2014’s best-selling Capital in the Twenty-First Century, is said to have foreseen the Trump presidency-- predicting that voters who felt marginalised by globalisation would turn to radical solutions outside of the realms of traditional politics.

Could there be parallels in support for the Sanders campaign? A portion of the electorate that again feels left behind in a highly unequal society, who could turn away from "business as usual" solutions, and wants real structural change.

In a discussion with the Financial Times, Piketty described the two different policy reactions to this scenario-- the first wants to regulate the movement of goods and people, the other wants to regulate the movement of capital. One focuses on external factors (immigrants, unfair trade deals), the other on internal factors (inequality, education, health) advocating structural change at home.

At this early stage of the primary campaign it is still unclear whether the American voter will opt for the latter, and embrace Mr Sanders.