The Orange Menace Must Be Defeated-- Biden Needs To Rev Up The Democratic Base

I feel like Trump is slitting his own throat and, in fact, he's already a dead-man-walking in terms of the November election. That's my opinion and not everyone agrees with me. But polls show most voters have made up their minds and will not be swayed and a majority of them have made up their minds to oppose trump, whether they like Biden or not. In fact, stunning numbers of voters are just motivated to cast ballots against Trump, not for Biden. On his blog yesterday, David Sirota took it a step further and noted that "As Biden has ignored the Democratic base, polls now show he faces an enthusiasm gap. Progressive pressure is needed to force him to energize Democratic voters and defeat Trump. The survey data is clear: One of the biggest threats to defeating Donald Trump in the upcoming election is a Democratic enthusiasm gap. It exists, in part, because Democratic voters spent the last 12 years voting for change, and now they are exhausted after they kept getting a status quo that gratuitously kicks the face of humanity. The enthusiasm gap also exists because Joe Biden has seemed more focused on trying to court Republicans in ways that can demotivate Democratic voters. Progressives sounding alarms about these facts are periodically depicted as seditious Russian-backed assets nefariously trying to throw the election to Trump."

Most [progressives] criticize Biden not just because some of his policies are so wrong on the merits, but also because his wrongness is a clear and present danger to the effort to win the 2020 election.

A comparison of Biden’s positions and polling suggest that this danger is now very real, even though the Democratic ticket still could win.

Biden has continued to oppose Medicare for All, even as polls show the health care crisis has made that proposal even more popular.

Biden has used the wildfire season to declare that he won’t ban fracking-- a move portrayed in the media as a way to court Pennsylvania voters, even though a new poll shows a majority of voters there oppose fracking.

I remember when Matt Cartwright challenged Blue Dog incumbent, Rep. Tim Holden. Holden basically represented the fracking interests inside the House Democratic caucus and Cartwright made his own opposition to fracking the issue. Blue America put up anti-fracking billboards all over the district. Thewhole Democratic establishment-- especially Steny Hoyer-- came out strong for Holden. The Democratic establishment said an anti-fracking platform would never win in northeastern Pennsylvania. In a leans-Republican district, Cartwright beat Holden 33,255 (57.1%) to 24,953 (42.9%) and then went on to beat pro-fracking Republican Laureen Cummings 161,393 (60.3%) to 106,208 (39.7%). The GOP has been throwing candidates up against Cartwright-- whip of the Congressional Progressive Caucus-- even since and, aside from screaming "Socialist!!!!" and "Pelosi" (and now "AOC and Ilhan"), they campaign against him on fracking as well. Since Cummings, he's beaten all 3 pro-fracking Republicans they ran against him-- even in 2016, when Trump won the district against Hillary by 10 points. They're trying again now and if you want to help Matt keep his seat, you can contribute here. 

Cartwright is backing Biden and I'm sure will be a good influence on him when he's in the White House. Back to Sirota:

Biden engineered a Democratic convention promoting GOP politicians as a way to try to make this “the year of the Biden Republican,” as Rahm Emanuel put it. And yet, a recent CBS/YouGov poll shows Biden is earning the support of just 5 percent of Republican voters and trailing Trump among independent swing voters.

The Biden-Sanders task forces produced some solid progressive economic policy recommendations, but Biden hasn’t campaigned on those proposals. Instead, his campaign publicly downplayed the recommendations, while Biden has continued to periodically echo his infamous “nothing would fundamentally change” theme by telling donors he may not actually push those policies. Now, one poll shows him underperforming among some Latino voters and another poll shows just 9 percent of his own voters say they are supporting him because of his position on issues.

...To be sure, enthusiasm may not determine the election outcomes-- an excited voter’s ballot is no less powerful than a depressed voter’s ballot, and as long as both ballots are turned in, then enthusiasm levels don’t matter. But enthusiasm tends to relate to turnout, and it could particularly determine turnout at a moment when some Americans will be required to be so psyched about the election that they are willing to venture out during a pandemic to cast their vote.

In that situation, enthusiasm probably matters a lot-- which means an enthusiasm gap could be a big problem.

...Voters aren’t unreasonable “purists” because they are unhappy that Democrats don’t seem to be offering policies that will prevent communities from being incinerated in climate-intensified wildfires. They aren’t “holier than thou” by expressing dissatisfaction with a Democratic Party still propping up a for-profit health care system that threatens to quickly bankrupt people when they need medical care.

At a moment of such pain and suffering, attempting to guilt, insult and bully voters into supporting the Democratic cause is moronic and ineffective-- and worse, it is ignorant of millions of Americans’ lived reality over the last 12 years. The Democratic electorate has voted over and over and over again for change, and their party’s leaders have returned the favor with bank bailouts, record oil exports during a climate emergency, an abandonment of the labor movement, corporate-written trade policies that crush workers and health care reform that props up insurance profits.

Who could experience the real-world consequences of that and not feel a wee bit frustrated?

Like? Click.

Yes, wanting voters to throw Trump out of office is totally understandable-- he is far more dangerous than Biden, he must be defeated, and there are plenty of constructive ways to make the case that voters should back the Democratic ticket (which I’ve said before is what I’ll be doing). But vote-shaming isn’t one of them. Indeed, throwing shade at voters for feeling burnt out and unenthused is the modern-day “let them eat cake”-- and the impulse to engage in as self-destructive a tactic as vote-shaming evinces the dangerous ideology at work here.

You’ll notice that Democratic vote-shamers rarely complain the other way. Typically, they lament progressive pressure, but don’t lament big donors constantly demanding ideological fealty to an incrementalist corporate agenda that makes sure nothing fundamentally changes-- which inevitably leads to voter disillusionment.

They celebrate efforts to policy pander to affluent conservatives, but scoff at the notion of having to do any work to secure support from disaffected lower income Americans who might consider sitting the election out or voting third party because they are so completely disgusted with both parties.

In this world view, Democrats promising tax breaks to wealthy suburbanites is seen as laudable pragmatism and shrewd politics to attract affluent Republicans. By contrast, the idea of having to promise a Green New Deal to young people who see a lifetime of climate dystopia and think about voting third party-- that’s seen as uncouth behavior and detestable pandering to petulant serfs who supposedly don’t deserve even minimal respect or attention. The political class tells us to pay them no mind-- they are the electoral arena’s “no real person involved.”

As an election strategy, this attitude presumes that Chuck Schumer was right in 2016 when he insisted that “for every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

Of course, that theory has been electorally shellacked for a decade. And yet, these Democratic elites adhere to it-- and vote-shame anyone who questions it-- not because it has been successful and is the best strategy to win back Congress, expand health care or save the planet from climate change. They cling to the hypothesis because it at least provides a rationale-- however absurd-- to continue running campaigns whose number one directive is comforting the donor class.

More than even defeating Trump, satisfying the big contributors is the top priority because at least that is guaranteed to keep their checks going to Washington super PACs, consulting firms, think tanks and advocacy groups that are the permanent full-time employment machine for the entire Democratic political class, regardless of whether that political class ever actually wins elections or materially improves the lives of voters.

As long as donor maintenance is the prime directive and the money keeps flowing, that political class will be safely insulated in their second homes in the Hamptons, still getting the big TV invites and the fat corporate lobbying contracts even if Trump wins.

The rest of us, though, are screwed in a second Trump term. We don’t have vacation compounds, escape pods or endless cash reserves for the basic necessities of life-- and so we do not have the luxury and privilege of staying silent while Biden’s corporate-friendly politics and nothing-will-fundamentally-change message elicits an enthusiasm gap that could blow this election.

When, for instance, Bernie Sanders politely suggested that Biden needs to amplify a stronger economic message and “do more as a campaign than just go after Trump,” that wasn’t apostasy-- that was much-needed encouragement for Biden to do the most basic things to actually win the race.

When progressives criticized Biden for loading up his transition team with corporate cronies, that wasn’t some evil plot to tank the Democratic ticket-- it was an effort to root out the soft corruption that has defined Democratic politics for three decades and that has contributed to voters being unenthused about the party.

When progressives wondered aloud why Biden was giving a platform to unpopular Republican politicians like John Kasich at the Democratic convention, it wasn’t some pointless temper tantrum-- it was an attempt to steer Biden away from touting the GOP politicians who turn off Democratic voters and toward generating the massive Democratic turnout that will be necessary to defeat the current president.

When this newsletter spotlighted Biden’s campaign using GOP talking points and suggesting he will not follow through on his campaign promises, that wasn’t a display of purity trolling-- it was a warning that such messages were not only dishonest but potentially vote-depressing. And when Team Biden then backed off, that’s not something to complain about-- that’s a victory not just for better policy, but also for the campaign to defeat Trump.

That’s a different interpretation than you are probably used to seeing. After all, in our red-versus-blue, with-us-or-against-us tribalized politics, loyalty is venerated as the ultimate value. But here’s the thing: Loyalty is not falling in line and shutting up while leaders coddle donors and create a dangerous voter enthusiasm gap.

That’s political suicide-- and all of us who do not want to see another election-night disaster have an obligation to speak up and try to avert it before it happens.

Biden Can't Win; He Can Only Count On Trump Losing, Which Appears Likely

My friend Dorothy Reik was recently elected to the L.A. County Democratic Party Central Committee. She received more votes than anyone else who has ever run for that position. Ever! Yesterday, Reik wrote to subscribers of her influential daily update list that "Bernie was on Chris Hayes last night and Velshi this morning. He also hosts town halls on line. Where is Biden??? The sad truth is that the Democratic establishment was not worried that Bernie would lose-- their biggest fear was that he would WIN!"

The Democratic Party is operating on a theory that anyone can beat Trump because no matter how much he spends and no matter what tactics he uses, the election will be a referendum on him and a pile of dogshit will beat him. So the Democratic establishment has chosen a pile of dogshit to run-- and if the pile of dogshit becomes too untenable, they have several more piles in the wings and ready to go. Anyone but Bernie (or Elizabeth).

Even senior citizens-- the mainstay, along with the evangelicals, of the Republican coalition-- are abandoning Trump because of his horrific response to the pandemic. "For years," wrote a NY Times team pf reporters, "Republicans and Mr. Trump have relied on older Americans, the United States’ largest voting bloc, to offset Democrats’ advantage with younger voters. But seniors are also the most vulnerable to the coronavirus, and the Trump campaign’s internal polls show his support among voters over age 65 softening to a concerning degree, people familiar with the numbers said. A recent Morning Consult poll found that Mr. Trump’s approval rating on the handling of the coronavirus was lower with seniors than with any other group other than young voters." In several polls ole Status Quo Joe holds a 10-point advantage among voters who are 65 and older. Meanwhile, Señor Trumpanzee has basically moved on from anything but pretending to focus on controlling the pandemic to pushing an "agenda to restore the country to a place that will lift his campaign," no matter how many (old) people die in the process.

This week the U.S. will clock in with a million and a half infections and come close to the 100,000 deaths mark, about a quarter of whom are residents of nursing homes.

Trump is shedding supporters from elderly voters but Biden isn't exactly setting the younger electorate on fire with enthusiasm. Reporting for NBC News on the results of a focus group by Global Strategy Group on behalf of NextGen America, Sahil Kapur wrote last week that Biden is in no danger of losing young voters to Trump. "But he faces a lack of enthusiasm among Millennials and Gen Z voters with the potential to decide his fate if they stay home or vote for a third-party candidate. Many of these voters preferred Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and perceive Biden as a blank slate. They aren’t sure that he’s a change agent or that his policies match the scale of their problems. Some worry about his age and fitness. Most seem open to supporting Biden to stop Trump but need to hear more from him... But the election is six months away and if the new focus groups are any indication, Biden is still ill-defined for many young voters. 'Biden is unknown,' the Global Strategy Group study concluded. 'He became the nominee in the middle of the coronavirus crisis. Like many other voters, these ones are still getting to know Joe.'"

On Friday, Billboard reported that so far musicians who backed Bernie are sitting out the Biden campaign. Bernie's high-profile musician supporters who actively campaigned for him included Ariana Grande, Jack White, Neil Young, Cardi B, the Strokes, Halsey, Snoop Dogg, Jack Johnson, Jason Mraz, Miley Cyrus, Dua Lipa, Public Enemy, Roger Waters, Bon Iver, Vampire Weekend, Sonic Youth, Norah Jones, Jello Biafra, Pussy Riot, the Wonder Years, Sacred Reich, Ani DiFranco, Michael Stipe, Ozomatli, Tony! Toni! Toné!, Billy Bragg, and Killer Mike. These artists and their fans aren't Democrats. As far as their politics go, they are looking for agents of change-- like Bernie-- not partisan hacks-- like Biden. Billboard reached out to nearly 20 high-profile Sanders backers in the music world asking to talk about whether they'd shift support to Biden and received quick declines or no response.

Generally speaking, artists lean progressive, and many say they can't stomach the thought of a centrist, especially one with #MeToo issues, in the Oval Office. Strange Ranger, a Philadelphia indie-rock band, released a 20-track, multi-artist compilation to raise money for Sanders' campaign in January and plan a follow-up, but will change the beneficiary to the social-justice group Groundswell Fund rather than the presumptive Democratic nominee. Drummer Nathan Tucker and singer Isaac Eiger don't plan to campaign or fundraise for Biden and will support progressive down-ballot candidates instead. "I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Biden, but I'm not inspired by Joe Biden," Eiger says. "I don't know who is."

"People are always saying to pick the lesser of two evils, or whatever, but it's pretty disappointing to have to choose evil at all," adds Linnea Siggelkow, the Canadian pop singer and Sanders supporter who goes by Ellis. "So I have my hands up at this point."

In 2016, when Hillary Clinton defeated Sanders for the presidential nomination, artists handled these conflicts in different ways. Sanders backer Miley Cyrus became an enthusiastic Clinton supporter, while Killer Mike said supporting Trump or Clinton came down to "voting for the same thing." Cardi B took the Cyrus road after Sanders dropped out this year: “I’m just gonna go with Joe Biden because I cannot see the next step of America being ran by number 45,” she said.

"It's just a no-brainer," adds Melissa Etheridge, who backed Sen. Elizabeth Warren but appeared at a virtual fundraiser for Biden in April. "We can bring on change. It'll just be a little slower with Biden, but at least it will be leadership, for heaven's sakes." Actor-singer Billy Porter is more blunt: "Biden is my candidate because there is no other candidate, period," he says. "We must play the game we're in, and the game we're in is there's a monster in the White House who needs to get out and every one of his cronies needs to get out. Period. Y'all took your toys and went home when Bernie wasn't the candidate last time and that's why we lost. Line up and fix it!"

Complicating artists' 2020 political plans, whether they support Biden or down-ballot candidates or causes, is an inability to hold large public rallies due to COVID-19 lockdowns. It's unlikely, for example, that Bruce Springsteen will draw 11th-hour supporters in Pennsylvania or Beyoncé and Jay-Z will fill stadiums in Ohio in November. How will they adapt? By moving online, of course.

..."Online efforts are extremely scalable," says Carolyn DeWitt, president of Rock the Vote, which is known for its festival voter-registration efforts but has pivoted to lower-overhead virtual organizing over the years. "Setting up a table at a concert, you are bound to get a handful of individuals to register to vote. Online, you can use influencers to reach millions."

That's not to say voter registration is pandemic-proof. When concerts shut down March 12, PLUS1, which supports nonprofits and social-justice groups and focuses in part on voter registration, lost nearly $2 million in 1.7 million of canceled ticket sales; the group quickly launched a COVID-19 relief fund that has raised $250,000 for artists, venues and other music entities. "Financially, right now, we haven't reserved any of that for our partner organizations that do voter registration," says Marika Shaw, the group's founder and CEO. "And it sucks."

But even without Sanders in the race and large rallies questionable for the rest of this year, artist-focused political groups remain confident they can boost voter education through online efforts. "There's a part of me that's skeptical, but the other half is, 'Instead of being at this show and having to text this number with a beer in your hand, you'll go to this website and fill in this form,'" adds Kyle Frenette, former manager of Sanders supporter Bon Iver, who founded a nonpartisan get-out-the-vote group called 46 for 46. "The results could be surprising. People are at home and looking for things to watch. It's not limited to that time and place."

Recently former Onion editor, Joe Garden, put together a piece for Vice: Area Man Regrets Helping Turn Joe Biden Into a Meme "If you’ve ever thought of Joe Biden as a clueless but lovable clod, a well-meaning klutz who is predictable, friendly, and ultimately electable," wrote Garden, "I am in small part responsible for that image. And I’m sorry. I worked at The Onion for 19 years as a writer and features editor. By the time I left in 2012, the publication had developed its take on Vice President Biden: 'creepy but harmless,' with the emphasis on 'harmless.' We lampooned him as an uncle you’d shake your head at but not think twice about-- the sort of guy who’d wink and say, 'Don’t let your meat loaf!' as a farewell. For many people, the image of Biden that most readily springs to mind is the one of Diamond Joe, shirtless and grinning, washing his Trans Am in the White House driveway."

Garden thought of Biden as "little more than a political necessity: the older, more conservative white guy who softened Barack Obama’s image in regions where the prospect of a black president was too radical. A deeper dive on Biden never felt necessary." He's changed his mind and wrote that he now realizes "how badly we screwed up. Instead of viciously skewering a public figure who deserved scrutiny, we let him off easy. The joke was funny, but it didn’t hit hard enough."

I’ve since changed my mind. Today, Biden is the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, despite women calling him out for touching them in ways that made them uncomfortable at public events, and despite objections from the left wing of the party. He has said he has “no empathy” for the problems millennials are experiencing and claimed that Republicans will embrace bipartisanship after Trump is defeated.

...To be clear, Biden won’t wind up in the same layer of hell as Trump, and I don’t believe The Onion’s Biden is solely responsible for this early popularity of real-life Biden. We were just one small link in a chain of institutions that didn’t scrutinize Biden closely enough. I wish we had looked more at his actual career in politics-- which includes opposition to busing as a way to integrate schools and support for predatory financial institutions-- and tried to really puncture him, rather than just turning him into a clown. We helped make him more likable by inventing a version of Biden that never existed.

I still think those Onion articles are funny. The Onion’s approach to covering public figures was to establish consistent, world-building takes that rewarded the reader, and our Biden was an endlessly refillable character with good visuals, one that made us laugh. It still makes me laugh.

But I’m afraid it didn’t go deep enough. His aforementioned handsiness may not be ultimately disqualifying, but his failure to honestly understand why it would be upsetting (he’s joked about it in public) certainly should be. And his insistence that we can rectify our current political discord with some good old-fashioned bipartisan dealmaking seems hopelessly out of touch and ignores all the times Democrats reached their hands across the aisle, only to be met with open flame from the right.

Satire isn’t dead, and it shouldn’t be cast aside. It will always have a place in the social order, and that is to tell the truth by constructing a fiction, to amplify society’s negative traits to a comical extent so you can see the ugliness that’s always been there.

On that score, The Onion’s Biden stories didn’t measure up. We knew through inside sources that at the time people in the White House loved those pieces, and that should have been a red flag. As a guideline, if the people you’re satirizing aren’t mad, then you should dig deeper. I hope that my alma mater, and everyone else in comedy, follows this rule now that Diamond Joe is back.

ClimateBrad observed yesterday that the Biden campaign likes the approach The Onion took on their pile of dogshit so much, that they're using that version to try to win over the electorate! Michael Scherer and Sean Sullivan wrote that "While the Trump campaign online has embraced a macho and combative approach-- 'This account punches back 10x harder,' runs the motto of one campaign Twitter account-- the Biden team has been seeking to develop a more uplifting identity online, embracing the candidate's life story and making light of his love of ice cream and aviator sunglasses. 'Trump's angles on social media are always dark, and they are always mean-spirited,' said Ben Cobley, a Biden digital organizer. He said Biden wanted to build a community around the more positive side of social media, populated by inspiring memes and cat videos. 'We want to lean into that side of the Internet because that side also plays very well.'" They might want to try to figure out why Democratic enthusiasm for their candidate is lagging so badly.

Huge Voter Enthusiasm To Rid America Of The Plague-- The Trump Plague

"Die For Me" by Nancy Ohanian

A wide consensus is forming that the two worst governors in America are Trump patsies Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Kristi Noem (R-SD). "Gov. Kristi Noem reiterated Tuesday that she won't be ordering South Dakota residents to stay home amid the coronavirus pandemic, as another 121 confirmed cases were reported in the state. The majority of South Dakota's 988 total cases-- 768-- are in Minnehaha County, which includes the Smithfield Foods pork processing plant in Sioux Falls, the site of one of the largest known clusters of COVID-19 cases in the country." [Side note: Minnehaha County, the most populated county in the state, went for Trump in 2016-- but 30,610 people (39.1%) voted for Hillary, so they don't deserve this.]

As bad as governors like DeSantis and Noem are, Morning Consult reporter Eli Yokley reported yesterday that their new poll shows that "Trump appears to be bearing the brunt of voters’ criticism toward government... The downward drift in views about Trump’s handling of the crisis comes as the share of voters who said they were 'very concerned' about the virus has increased to 65 percent, though Democrats (76 percent) were more likely than Republicans (56 percent) to share that strong concern.

The new survey found that Trump’s coronavirus approval rating fell 24 points among Democrats and 17 points among independents in the last month. His job approval on the pandemic is just 45%-- with 49% disapproving.

Reuters also released their latest poll-- by Ipsos-- which shows tremendous Democratic voter enthusiasm. It isn't for Biden. No one gives a shit about him who isn't part of the one percent. The enthusiasm is to rid America of the plague-- not just the coronavirus pandemic, but the Trump Plague. Chris Kahn summed it up perfectly:

When Republicans in Wisconsin pushed through state elections last week in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, Jessica Jaglowski donned a protective mask and headed for the ballot box, determining her best shot at self-preservation was not to stay home but to vote Republicans out of office.

Come November, when Republican President Donald Trump is up for re-election, Jaglowski, a 47-year-old Democrat in Milwaukee, says she will be even more determined to vote, even if the deadly virus continues to ravage her community.

“He’s half the reason we’re in this mess right now,” she said, criticizing Trump for downplaying the threat of COVID-19 before it hit the country hard. “If I have to wait in line for 12 hours, in a storm, I don’t care. I’m voting for whoever can get Trump out.”

After three years in the White House, this much about Trump is clear: Those who want to deny him the presidency are much more determined to vote now than they were four years ago.

Democrats’ intention to vote is also rising more than it is among Republicans, both nationally and in historically competitive battleground states like Wisconsin that Trump narrowly won in 2016, according to more than 66,000 U.S. adults who took the Reuters/Ipsos online poll in the first quarter of 2020 or 2016.

The highly motivated opposition is another sign of trouble for Trump, who saw his chief argument for re-election-- a soaring economy and record-low unemployment-- evaporate amid a health crisis that has put millions of Americans out of work.

Even before the pandemic, Trump struggled to woo independents and moderates he would need to win November’s election, and recent polls showed Trump trailing presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden by several points nationwide, as well as in battleground states such as Arizona and Michigan.

According to the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 70% of Democrats said they were “certain” to vote in the upcoming presidential election, 9 percentage points higher than in the first quarter of 2016.

Among Republicans, the increase from 2016 was much smaller-- 3 percentage points-- with 71% saying they will vote in November.

Democrats have for years outnumbered Republicans in the United States but they also tend to be less politically active. Yet for the first time since at least 2012, nearly the same percentage of Democrats and Republicans said they planned to vote in 2020.

When the poll combined states that are expected to be especially competitive this year-- Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Colorado-- voting interest rose by 11 points among Democrats over the past four years, while it only rose by 3 points among Republicans.

...The rise in political enthusiasm was on display in the Democratic presidential nominating contests this year. Turnout in many states such as Michigan, Virginia and South Carolina surpassed previous highs set in 2008, when Barack Obama made his historic run for the presidency.

In state after state, large majorities of Democratic primary voters-- around 60%-- said they were “angry” with the Trump administration, while 30% said they were “dissatisfied,” according to exit polls by Edison Research. Most of them said they voted for a candidate who they thought could beat Trump.

The intensity of Democratic political engagement is part of a broader, tribal mentality of “negative partisanship” that has been increasingly motivating voters for a half century, said Steven Webster, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis.

...Another sign of Democratic enthusiasm came from Wisconsin where liberal judge Jill Karofsky scored an upset victory over conservative, Trump-backed incumbent Daniel Kelly in a state Supreme Court election in which she won some counties that voted for Trump in 2016.

Milwaukee’s Janine Hedges, 50, was among thousands who waited in line to vote last week in Wisconsin, which also held a Democratic presidential primary. She cast her ballot for Sanders, who has since suspended his campaign and endorsed Biden. In November, she is ready to wait in line again-- for Biden-- regardless of the coronavirus.

“We just can’t do four more years of this,” she said. “Even though he is not my first choice, Biden is somebody who has a more benevolent side to him. We need that.”

Bernie and-- now, having spoiled Bernie's chance to win the Super Tuesday states-- Elizabeth Warren have endorsed Status Quo Joe. No one knows how much of their followings will walk with them into the camp of one of the most conservative Democrats of the last 5 decades-- a beacon for anti-progressives in the party that many have hoped would be the progressive party. But even among Biden-skeptics, turnout is expected to be high, not just because of progressive antipathy towards Trump and Trumpism but because of the hopes that candidates running for Congress on the issues Bernie brought to the fore-- Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, free public universities, racial justice, dignity for the working class, etc-- will still be able to help move this issues forward.

Polling in Arizona, until recently considered one of the reddest of red states, shows that Democratic centrist Mark Kelly will trounce Republican incumbent Martha McSally in November. He's leading her by 9 points right now, a steadily increasing advantage. Republicans favor her; Democrats favor him. But independent voters have moved decisively in favor of Kelly and against McSally, a knee-jerk Trump enabler.

I asked four of the progressive congressional candidates from very different districts if they get a sense of what's driving Democratic voter enthusiasm beyond Trump-hated. Please read what Cori Bush, Eva Putzova and Tom Guild told me last night about what they think isn motivating voters in their districts and, please, consider contributing to their campaigns by clicking on the Blue America 2020 thermometer below.

Cori Bush, who is running in St. Louis, feels one crucial factor is that people are looking for leadership-- and honesty and integrity in leadership. She told me that the "top issues that motivate the voters and supporters we speak to across the board are Medicare for All and a Green New Deal. Our base understands that no matter who is in the presidency, we will need leaders in Congress willing to champion these bold policies and hold the executive office accountable. The majority of Americans support both policies, and yet even in the midst of a pandemic, we are clearly seeing how many politicians are digging in their heels."

Eva Putzova's vast Arizona district, AZ-01, is far more rural. "In my district," she said, "most Democratic and Independent voters that I talk to are desperate to get rid of Donald Trump. But they are also increasingly motivated to change the direction of the country and not merely return to the status quo prior to Trump. They want immigration reform, they want universal health care and Medicare for All, they want immediate action on fighting climate change and they support the Green New Deal, among many other priorities. This is why my campaign for Congress is gaining so much support. Voters are tired of politicians, like my opponent, who are satisfied with minor reforms that don't address the major problems facing people today. The reason for that, of course, is that many incumbent politicians, like my opponent, are bought and paid for by corporate contributions to their campaigns. I don't take any corporate money and can't be bought. The voters in my district see that and are responding to my campaign with great enthusiasm."

Robin Wilt was inspired by Bernie and by the issues he was running on. Bernie is no longer running and Robin is representing those issues to the voters in Monroe County, New York. "The theme of Bernie’s campaign for the Presidency is 'Not me. Us,' she told us last night. "The slogan concisely communicates the sheer breadth of the movement that his platform spurred to action. There are hundreds of candidates down-ballot that represent 'Us.' Someone once asked me, after Bernie exited the Presidential primary in 2016, whether I still supported Bernie Sanders. I emphatically replied , 'Of course I do,' since my ethics and morals remained the same both prior to Bernie’s candidacy and after his exit. Now that Bernie has suspended his 2020 candidacy, the movement spawned by the ideals that he articulated is no less active. In Rochester and Monroe County, we have been fielding calls and emails from Bernie supporters who are excited to continue the fight for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, Education and Income Equity, and Housing Justice. Bernie’s candidacy was never about Bernie, himself, but rather about the interests and policies that the 99% deserve. Those interests and policies are no less important now than when Bernie was running. Bernie may not be at the top of the ballot, but he created a movement that was farther reaching than his coattails on a ballot. He demonstrated the power that resides within each of us to fight for someone that we don’t know."

Tom Guild's district is mostly Oklahoma City. Yesterday, he told me that "A majority of Democrats and Independents who voted in the 2020 Oklahoma Democratic presidential primary in March told exit pollsters that they favor Medicare for All. With the projected loss of private for profit employer provided health care estimated at 35 million workers, now more than ever Americans are coming to the conclusion that Medicare for All is the way to go. There are eleven candidates who filed for Congress in my district. I’m the only candidate who favors MFA. Not one single competitor has publicly embraced any plan to bring universal health care to the American people. As more people learn that I’m the only candidate running who wants to give them dependable and affordable universal health care security, our support continues to grow. Many younger voters and others are very serious about climate change. As they learn that our campaign supports the Green New Deal, and that no other candidate has the same position, we have many who are anxious to join us. The future viability of our planet is too crucial to neglect. I’m also the only one running in the 5th district who not only supports raising the minimum wage to $15, but also going a step further. I want all Americans to have a living wage. Once the living wage is set it will be automatically adjusted upward as inflation eats into the purchasing value of the wage. Working Oklahomans have lower wages when compared to national and regional averages, and they are excited that they can look to a future when they can work a 40 hour week and afford their basic expenses every month. On the international front, I’m the only one running for this seat in Congress, who wants to reassert the power of Congress, and stop this president or any future president, from initiating another endless foreign war without the authorization of Congress. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. Many Americans are exhausted with the current series of endless wars. There are millions alive today who have never experienced an America at peace. Opposition to endless war cuts across nearly all demographic and partisan groups. It is a strange and unusual election year, because of the pandemic emergency. Blue America and DWT help many grassroots progressive candidates garner the resources to get our essential message out to voters. It’s a challenging environment, but thankfully there are many progressive champions willing to go to work for ordinary Americans. We appreciate your support!"

Now We're Going To Catch All You Little Fockers

Saturday Max Boot played Captain Obvious in a Washington Post OpEd, Trump is drowning in scandal. He can’t focus on Syria. Is that lucky for us? For the Syrians? Like many of us, the bombing raid on Syria is seen strictly as a Wag The Dog moment the regime decided toes if they could pull off.

It tells you something about the chaos engulfing the Trump administration that the U.S. airstrikes on Syria had to jostle for public attention with the voluminous news of the president’s scandals.

Friday began with President Trump labeling his former FBI director “an untruthful slime ball.” He was responding to James B. Comey’s new book, which calls Trump an “unethical” man “untethered to truth.” Such invective, both from and against a former FBI director, is unprecedented. But then it’s also groundbreaking for a former FBI director to say, as he did in an interview released Friday: “I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It’s possible, but I don’t know.”

The purported “pee tape” Comey was referencing is an unconfirmed portion of the “Steele dossier” on links between Trump and the Kremlin. The dossier-- a summary of intelligence gathered by former British spy Christopher Steele for Trump opponents, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign-- received some further validation Friday from a McClatchy report that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has evidence that Trump’s private lawyer, Michael Cohen, visited the Czech Republic in the summer of 2016, just as Steele had indicated. Cohen has strongly denied he made the trip.

Friday also brought news that Cohen is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for a litany of offenses. That same day, the deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee resigned after the disclosure that he had paid $1.6 million in hush money to a former mistress, a Playboy playmate, whom he had impregnated. The broker of the hush money was none other than Cohen. Later Friday, the Justice Department’s inspector general released a scathing report about Comey’s former No. 2, Andrew McCabe. Trump, who knows a thing or two about lying, crowed “He LIED! LIED! LIED!” and blamed the “made up” collusion probe on a “den of thieves and lowlifes” at the FBI-- which reports to him.

It is hard to imagine how Trump can do his job-- for example, approving military strikes on Syria-- while drowning in this rising tide of scandal. There is an old tradition, more honored in theory than fact, that issues of national security are kept separate from domestic politics, but Trump is utterly incapable of making any such distinction. For him, everything is political-- and all politics is personal.

Last Monday, while Trump was meeting with his generals and Cabinet members to plot strategy against Syria, he got sidetracked with a disturbing tirade against the FBI and the Justice Department for raiding Cohen’s office-- which he called a “real disgrace” and an “attack on what we all stand for.” The new national security adviser, John Bolton, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat ashen-faced as Trump unloaded on the career professionals of the Justice Department and FBI who, just like the armed forces, are pledged to defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Yet somehow dispassionate foreign policy analysts are supposed to put all this to the side and comment on the Syria strikes as if they were being undertaken by a president in his right mind. Okay, I’ll play along, if only briefly.

The airstrikes were the bare minimum that the United States could do to punish Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad for his use of chemical weapons. But it’s unlikely that they will dissuade him from future atrocities, any more than the previous “pinprick” airstrike in April 2017 did. Trump, who is oblivious to history and irony, actually boasted “Mission Accomplished!” But that triumphalist claim is even less likely to be vindicated than it was when President George W. Bush spoke beneath a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner on an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003. Just as Bush had no Iraq plan in the spring of 2003, so today Trump has no Syria plan. In all likelihood, he will resume pressuring the Pentagon to withdraw U.S. troops, thus abandoning our Kurdish allies and handing a major victory to Assad and his Iranian and Russian backers.

But it’s hard to imagine that Trump, who in the best of times has the attention span of a hyperactive 8-year-old, can focus on strategy for Syria amid the far more pressing threats that he faces from an ever-expanding criminal investigation. If the United States had a parliamentary government, Congress could pass a motion of “no confidence,” thus allowing Trump to devote 100 percent of his attention to fighting the multiplying charges against him without the distractions of running the government. Instead, we must hope that the institutions of the U.S. government are strong enough to function more or less on autopilot while Trump is consumed by the wages of his own sins.

Boot doesn't get into what this is going to mean for candidates in the quickly approaching midterm elections. Democrats are counting on it meaning exactly what Trump's behavior has meant for candidates in the string of special elections that have seen mammoth swings away from the GOP. Oklahoma, one of the reddest states in America, has had 8 special elections since Trump occupied the White House. The average swing towards Democratic candidates has been 32 points. Another very red state, Missouri has had 9 special elections-- resulting in a 17.9 swing towards the Democrats. South Carolina has similar results-- 7 special elections and an average swing of 17.6 towards the Democrats. How about in a purple state? New Hampshire had 11 special elections and the average swing towards the Democrats has been 17.7 points. Another purple state, Iowa, was had 4 special elections-- with a 26.2% swing towards the Dems. Before Gov. Scott Walker announced he was suspending special elections-- since overturned by the judiciary-- Wisconsin had had 2 specials and the average swing away from the GOP was an astronomical 27.2 points.

Yesterday NBC News and the Wall Street Journal released a poll that shows why: Democratic enthusiasm... and lack of enthusiam from the GOP. Last Tuesday, Florida's 31st state Senate district had a special election to fill a very blue seat and everyone expected the Democrat to win. But it was much worse for the GOP than anyone expected. Democratic voter enthusiasm was sky high, while GOP desire to get to the polls flagged. The Palm Beach County special saw Democrat Lori Berman crush Republican Tami Donnally by a massive 74.8% to 25.2%, the highest share of the vote received by any Florida Democrat in at least a decade. The swing away from Trump in the 2016 presidential vote was very significant. In 2016 Hillary beat Trump 61.38% to 36.31%. Trump lost the 31st by around 25 points but onTuesday Donnally, the vice chair of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, lost by nearly 50%. Now that's a swing that screams "blue wave!" Donnally, in a prelude to November: "I’m disappointed more Republicans didn’t come out to vote. And I don’t know why."

The poll shows that the enthusiam gap Donnally was whining about is a nationwide gap-- "an advantage in intensity for Democrats." The poll shows a 7-point advantage for Democrats in congressional preference-- 47% of voters wanting a Democratic-controlled Congress and 40 % preferring a GOP-controlled Congress. That isn't such a big gap, but what is is the enthusiasm gap-- 66% of Democrats expressing a high level of interest (either a “9” or “10” on a 10-point scale) in November’s elections, versus 49% for Republicans. And among these high-interest voters, Democrats lead Republicans in congressional preference by 21 points, 57% to 36%. That's the death knell for Republicans in swing districts.

That this election is going to be a referendum on Trump, as it has been in special elections, is going to be catastrophic for Republican candidates, even well-funded incumbents. 40% of poll respondents said their November votes will be a message that more Democrats are needed to check and balance Trump and his enablers in the Republican-controlled Congress. (28% said that more Republicans are needed to help Trump pass his agenda.) Among independents who are registered to vote 27% wanted to send a message that checks and balances to Trump and congressional Republicans will help them decide how to vote, while among that same group, just 14% said they want Republicans to win so that they can help Trump and GOP leaders pass the Republican agenda.

This isn't going to matter in districts with overwhelming Republican majorities where the GOP doesn't need independent voters, like AL-04 (where Trump beat Hillary 80.4% to 17.4%), FL-01 (where Trump beat Hillary 67.5% to 28.2%), GA-09 (where Trump beat Hillary 77.8% to 19.3%), GA-14 (where Trump beat Hillary 75.0% to 22.1%), KY-05 (where Trump beat Hillary 79.6% to 17.5%), NE-03 (where Trump beat Hillary 74.9% to 20.0%), OK-03 (where Trump beat Hillary 73.6% to 20.9%), TN-01 (where Trump beat Hillary 76.7% to 19.7%) or TX-13 (where Trump beat Hillary 79.9% to 16.9%). In districts where independent voters decide elections though, Republicans are going to be wiped out. That's why so many Republicans, from Paul Ryan (WI-01), Darrell Issa (CA-49), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11) and Lamar Smith (TX-21) to Ryan Costello (PA-06), Pat Meehan (PA-07). Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27) and Dave Trott (MI-11) are dropping out and retiring early. Expect more to follow.

Is Trump More Insane Or More Dishonest? Will Voters Care In 2018?

At one time MSNBC's Morning Joe seemed to be Trump's favorite TV show. He was a guest numerous times and even bandied about the idea of naming Joe Scarborough his vice president, And remember when he asked Scarborough's co-host and fiancé, Mika Brzezinski, to come visit transition headquarters in Trumpanzee Tower? Thursday morning, before Comey's testimony at the Senate Intelligence Committee, Brzezinski speculated what many Americans fear, that Trump is "mentally ill." On the air yesterday she said "I think he's such a narcissist, it's possible that he is mentally ill in a way. He's not well. At the very least he's not well... And he's so narcissistic he does not believe the rules apply to him. That's where the ignorance label may apply because this is a man who says he can grab women anywhere because he's famous. The point is, he feels he can say or do things different from the norm because he's famous, because he's a celebrity, because he has power."

And while she was going on about Trump's personal qualities, Quinnipiac was releasing their newest poll which reports some pretty strong, widely-shared opinions about Trump's personal qualities. Hours later, when Comey said several times under oath that Trump is a liar, he was confirming what 59% of Americans already know. Trump's job approval sank to it's lowest ever-- 34-57%, 3 points lower than in late May.

"There is zero good news for President Donald Trump in this survey, just a continual slide into a chasm of doubt about his policies and his very fitness to serve," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"If this were a prize fight, some in his corner might be thinking about throwing in the towel. This is counter puncher Donald Trump's pivotal moment to get up off the mat.

"With a third of the members of his own party questioning his level headedness, this is clearly the moment the president needs to steady the ship."

American voters say 68 - 29 percent that President Trump is not level-headed, his worst grade on that quality. Republicans say 64 - 32 percent he is level-headed. Voter opinions of most other Trump qualities are negative:

• 59 - 36 percent that he is not honest;
• 58 - 39 percent that he does not have good leadership skills;
• 58 - 40 percent that he does not care about average Americans

...American voters disapprove 62 - 32 percent of Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord. Republicans are the only listed group to approve, 72 - 20 percent.

A total of 76 percent of voters are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about climate change and 65 percent say the U.S. needs to do more to address climate change.

Immediately after the Comey testimony at the Senate yesterday, that gross Huckabee daughter who works for Trump said "No, I can say definitively the president is not a liar." Well I guess that settles that.

The Cook Report's Amy Walter pointed out the further growth of "a clear 'enthusiasm' gap is opening between Democrats and Republicans, with Democrats more engaged (or is it enraged?) than their GOP counterparts. We are seeing a drop in 'strong' approval for President Trump as well as less than robust turn-out from GOP voters in special elections in Kansas, Georgia and Montana.

The latest example of this enthusiasm gap is the drop in the percentage of Americans who identify as Republican. Polling taken in May by Gallup finds 45 percent of Americans identify themselves as Democrats and 38 percent identify as Republican. The seven-point gap is the largest recorded by Gallup since April of 2015. With Trump’s overall job rating stalled in the high 30’s to low 40’s and the GOP- controlled Congress yet to rally around (or pass) a significant legislative agenda, it’s not surprising to see fewer Americans identify themselves as a Republican. Think of party identification (do you identify as a Republican, Democrat or independent), like the “bandwagon” effect in sports. The better your team is doing, the more likely that you will follow their games, wear their gear, and proudly tell people you are a fan. But, when your team starts losing, the gear goes back into the closet, the TV is tuned to another program and you give your season tickets away to anyone willing to go to the stadium.

But, before Democrats get too excited about these latest numbers, it’s important to note that there has not been a corresponding bump in the percentage of Americans who identify as Democratic. As Gallup writes, “the Republican decline has been offset mostly by a three-point increase in the percentage of Americans with no party preference or leaning.” In other words, voters may be souring on Republicans but that doesn’t mean they are transferring their allegiance to Democrats.

Whoever Wins In Mississippi, It Will Be A Victory For The NRA And For Anti-Choice, Anti-Immigrant And Anti-Gay Fanatics

The bitterly divisive Republican Party primary in Kansas has endangered the Republicans’ ability to hold that red, red state’s Senate seat. The Republican Party primary in Mississippi was even more bitter and more divisive. But Thad Cochran, the senile 76 year old incumbent who was first sent to Washington in 1973 (as a congressman) and who has been in the Senate since 1978, is probably going to hold on. He spent almost $6,000,000 in the primary and squeaked by teabagger Chris McDaniel 157,733 to 156,315 in the first round and 194,932 to 187,265 in the runoff.

Two weeks from tomorrow he’ll face off against reactionary Blue Dog Travis Childers, before he was defeated in the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010, one of the 3 most right-wing Democrats in the House. His platform in this race has basically been to appeal to disenchanted McDaniel supporters by bragging how he voted against Obamacare and reiterating that he’s a big NRA supporter and an opponent of women’s right to Choice, LGBT equality and immigrants. The most recent public poll, released by YouGov for CBS News on October 5, shows Cochran at 46% and Childers at 35% (when you include leaners). That is a loot of undecided voters— but 35% is nothing to write home about. Last time Cochran ran (2008), the Democrat, Erik Fleming, took 39%. In 2012 the other Republican Senator, Roger Wicker, beat Democrat Albert Gore 57-41% and Republican Governor Phil Bryant was elected in 2011 against Democrat Johnny DuPee 61-39%. Even President Obama did better than Childers’ 35%. He took 44% against Mitt Romney.

The DSCC hasn’t gotten involved in Childers’ long-shot bid and national Democratic groups have written the race off. As of the June 30 FEC filing deadline Childers had raised $178,621 and was holding just $34,895 cash-on-hand to Cochran’s $714,290 cash-on-hand. Although over $11 million was spent by outside groups during the primary— the Chamber of Commerce defending Cochran with $1,200,000 and Club for Growth attacking him with $3,140,012 for example— no outside money has been spent by anyone for the general. Childers isn’t getting any money from traditional Democratic sources, although the Blue Dog’s so-called Moderate Democrats PAC gave him $10,000 and conservative Democratic allies like Blue Dog Joe Donnelly ($5,000), Kirsten Gillibrand, a “former” Blue Dog herself, ($5,000), Mark Begich ($5,000), Steny Hoyer ($2,500), and Tom Carper ($2,500) have contributed through their own PACs.

Yesterday’s Clarion-Ledger did a profile of candidate Childers and what they call his “wild card” chance to win: angry teabaggers.

Many McDaniel supporters are spitting mad. They believe Cochran stole the Republican runoff through dirty tricks, race baiting and otherwise urging Democrats to raid the GOP primary.

Many have vowed to vote for Childers, sit out the general election or write in McDaniel (which would spoil their ballots). All of the above would help Childers in what is otherwise a very long shot. He faces a well-funded, six-term incumbent Republican in a very red state.

Will Republican voters really cross over in numbers and vote for the Democrat as they've vowed on social media?

"I take folks at their word," said Democratic Party Chairman Rickey Cole. "If they're committed enough to put it out there on Facebook or Twitter, I believe they will."

Recent polling shows the race has tightened somewhat, with Childers at 35 percent, Cochran stuck below 50, at 46 percent. A large tea party crossover or sit-out could tip the scales.

But Childers has to walk a very fine line. He needs some tea party crossover, but he can't risk losing any Democratic base. Cochran has enjoyed healthy support from Democrats, not just in his runoff hail Mary, but in general elections for most of his career.

Childers is guarded when asked about tea party support.

"I hear from all kinds of folks," Childers said while on his recent Jackson-Morton-Forest trip, mirroring earlier comments. "Since I started my career, I've always had great support from my fellow Democrats. I have always attracted a large independent vote … I have always had some Republican support."

But Childers has made two platform pitches to tea party voters.

At this summer's Neshoba County Fair, he pledged in his stump speech to vote for a balanced budget amendment, saying, "The tea party says we cannot sustain $17 trillion in debt. They're right."

More recently, Childers became the first Democrat to sign the Federation for American Immigration Reform anti-amnesty pledge.

Childers said this was not red meat for the tea party and "not aimed at anybody." But it drew accolades from some tea party leaders. The blowback from Democrats so far has been minimal.

…"I haven't always had the best relationship with Washington," Childers said. "It seemed when I was up there, I never did fall in line. I voted my genuinely held beliefs, what I thought best.

"I was fiscally conservative on money issues," Childers said. "I consider myself a moderate. I never got hung up on labels. I knew what my politics were. I really believe my politics fit the mode of the average Mississippian, and the average working Mississippian."

Childers said he voted against the Affordable Care Act because, "I just thought we could have done so much better." He said health care reform was needed, "because the insurance companies were running health care, and still do, to some extent.”

Childers claims he hasn’t switched to the GOP (yet) because he’s proud to be a Democrat. He favors increasing the minimum wage and attacks Cochran for voting against the Paycheck Fairness Act. Perhaps because he’s such a staunch anti-Choice fanatic, there is no gender gap working in his favor so far. 29% of Mississippi women say they will vote for him and 31% say they will vote for Cochran. With leaners they’re tied at 35-35%.

Equally bad news for Childers, especially in light of the NY Times report yesterday on Black voting, is that Childers isn't inspiring Blacks. Many remember what a conservative he was and don't plan to bother going to the polls to vote for him. Why should they? Only 58% of African-American voters say they’ll vote for him— which compares badly to African American support for other conservative southern Democrats like Mary Ladrieu (76%), Mark Pryor (76%), Michelle Nunn (77%), Kay Hagan (83%), Mark Warner (83%) and Alison Lundergan Grimes (92%).

The confidential memo from a former pollster for President Obama contained a blunt warning for Democrats. Written this month with an eye toward Election Day, it predicted “crushing Democratic losses across the country” if the party did not do more to get black voters to the polls.

“African-American surge voters came out in force in 2008 and 2012, but they are not well positioned to do so again in 2014,” Cornell Belcher, the pollster, wrote in the memo, dated Oct. 1. “In fact, over half aren’t even sure when the midterm elections are taking place.”

...[S]ophisticated targeting, church visits, high-profile surrogates and even direct appeals by the president may go only so far, some Democrats said, when candidates are running away from a politician black voters adore. Ms. Grimes is but one example.

In Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu ran an ad calling the president’s policies “simply wrong when it comes to oil and gas production.” In Georgia, Michelle Nunn, the Democratic Senate nominee, has refused to say if she would have voted for the Affordable Care Act-- Mr. Obama’s signature domestic initiative.

None of this sounds good for Childers. In 2008, while only 11% of wjite Mississippians backed President Obama's election, 98% of Blacks voted for him. Elijah Cummings of Maryland sums it up like this: "People understand that you have to walk a thin line," describing Democratic candidates’ dilemma. "But African-Americans do not want you denying any affiliation with the president, because they love this president. He is like a son to them."

Another Corollary Of The Steve Israel Effect: Discouraged Democratic Voters Stay Home

All cycle we’ve been talking about The Steve Israel Effect— even before we named it. The Steve Israel Effect is when his grotesquely corrupt DCCC targets the wrong districts with awful conservative recruits, gets them to alienate grassroots Democrats with mealy-mouthed mystery meat positions by promising huge independent expenditures in their races— and then leaves them high and dry at the end of the campaign by withdrawing all the financial support and transferring it to even worse and more conservative (and corrupt) candidates. One of over a dozen examples in the last few weeks: Steve Israel just withdrew $2.8 million in support for moderate John Foust and gave the money to wretched Nebraska Blue Dog Brad Ashford and the shady little bank lobbyist Pete Aguilar.

One of the corollaries of the Steve Israel Effect is that it depresses Democratic turn-out. Grassroots progressives, who differ markedly and across-the-board from the corrupt Beltway Establishment, are not usually enthused by the horrifyingly low calibre of candidates Israel and other DCCC hucksters recruit. Garbage candidates like Jennifer Garrison— anti-Choice, virulently anti-gay, pro-NRA, pro-fracking… she’d be perfect as a Republican— do not draw informed Democratic voters. Conservative incumbents (Blue Dogs and New Dems)— encouraged all cycle by Israel and Hoyer to vote with the GOP on crucial matters— are now all in trouble and struggling to survive. It’s no wonder why. Conservative voters already have their candidates, i.e., Republicans. When grassroots Dems don’t see a choice, they stay home. And, sure enough, yesterday’s Hill broke the news that Israel and the other lame brains in the DC Democratic Establishment are panicking as they “suddenly” realize that many of their base voters won’t be showing up in 3 weeks.

The Democratic Party's worst fears about the midterm election look to be coming true.

Polling in recent weeks suggests turnout on Election Day could be very low, even by the standards of recent midterms. That’s bad news for Democrats because core groups in the liberal base are more likely to stay home than are people in the demographic segments that lean Republican.

A Gallup poll last week found that voters are less engaged in this year's midterms than they were in 2010 and 2006. Only 33 percent of respondents said they were giving at least “some” thought to the upcoming midterms, compared to 46 percent in 2010 and 42 percent in 2006. Even more troubling for Democrats, Republicans held a 12-point advantage  when those paying “some” attention were broken down by party.

Historically, the core Democratic constituencies of young people, minorities and single women are more likely to skip voting in midterm elections. The current projections suggest that months of effort by the Democratic Party to engage those groups on issues such as the minimum wage and women's pay may have been in vain.

If the numbers hold, it could mean a rout for Democrats similar to the 2010 "shellacking”— President Obama’s description— that swept away their House majority.

"We cannot have 2010 turnout. If we have 2010 turnout among our key constituencies, we're going to have 2010 all over again. It's math," said Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher, who served as a pollster for President Obama's election campaigns.

…Some Democrats think the party hasn't done enough to pep up the groups that form its main pillars of support. Veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told The Hill last week that Hispanic voters would largely be unmotivated to vote in this year's elections due to President Obama's decision to delay an executive action on immigration.

“I think if we'd done something, it would have energized the Latino vote and drawn a clear distinction with the Republicans," Lake said.

Polling has further shown that young people are generally disengaged with this year's elections. A Pew Research poll this month found that only five percent of adults ages 18-29 were following the 2014 midterms very closely.

That could spell disaster for Democrats. National exit polls from the last midterm elections in 2010 indicated that voters aged 18-29 favored Democratic candidates over Republicans by 55 percent to 42 percent. Those figures were roughly reversed among voters aged 65 and older, who voted Republican 59 percent to 38 percent.

…Democrats are continuing to try hard to get their base to turn out. Leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus last month announced a multi-state campaign drive to motivate African American voters to go to the polls. The effort started with voter outreach drives at 3,000 African American churches across the country on September 21.

Way too late. It was all over when Pelosi reappointed Israel to head the DCCC and allowed him to start recruiting one wretched, unsupportable candidate after another. Although he’s trying to pad his “batting average” by including candidates from districts held by Democrats (Kathleen Rice, Aaron Woolf, Pat Murphy, Emily Cain, Seth Moulton), he’s likely to lose almost all his Red-to-Blue recruits, many of whom he’s already pulled the rug out from under. Of the 29 candidates left on his Red-to-Blue list, the only likely wins are 4 of the 5 running for Democratic-held seats (no Woolf) plus Pete Aguilar in an overwhelmingly Democratic district (D+5), plus Andrew Romanoff (CO-06), Staci Appel (IA-03), Gwen Graham (FL-02), and, maybe Domenic Recchia (NY-11), whose opponent has been indicted on 20 felonies. The rest look like they’re all going down, more victims of the Steve Israel Effect.


UPDATE: Latest Victims Of The Steve Israel Effect

Andrew Romanoff was once considered the most likely Democratic challenger to beat a Republican incumbent (extremist Mike Coffman). But Steve Israel has lost faith in him and just pulled a million dollars so he could better finance Blue Dog Brad Ashford in Nebraska and a gaggle of endangered conservative Democratic incumbents who have minimum support at a grassroots level after disappointing voters by sucking up to Wall Street for the last two years.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had reserved $1.4 million for TV spending to boost Romanoff in the final two weeks of his race against Republican Rep. Mike Coffman. But a DCCC aide said Friday that those funds would be distributed to other races.

Romanoff, a former state House speaker and unsuccessful 2010 Senate candidate, was once regarded as one of his party’s top 2014 hopefuls. But, with Republicans benefiting from a favorable national environment and Coffman running an energetic reelection campaign, Romanoff has seen his prospects dim.

Every candidate without exception who has followed Israel’s hollow losing advice has dim prospects now. A far less viable candidate than Romanoff, Israel fave Jennifer Garrison, has also had the legs cut out from under her feeble campaign in eastern/southern Ohio. Asked today by the Herald-Dispatch what steps the federal government should take to reduce the number of Americans living in poverty this was her response. (Keep in mind she makes her living tricking her neighbors into selling fracking rights under their property.) Sghe couldn’t think of any better way to help the unemployed and poverty-stricken than this GOP talking point— probably fed to her by Israel:

“The federal government should promote policies that encourage growth in our economy and create jobs. An example of these policies would be to invest in clean coal technologies and oppose the EPA standards on existing coal fired power plants that will result in a loss of jobs in this region. This can immediately encourage job growth in southeastern Ohio.”