Massachusetts Got Bluer Yesterday As Democrats Flipped Two Of The Last State Senate Seats (In Trump Districts)

Man In The Middle by Nancy Ohanian

People think of Massachusetts as an all blue state. It isn't. There's a Republican governor. And although Hillary won in a landslide in 2016, Trump still got over a million votes (33.5%). And in 2018, Republican Geoff Diehl won 36.2% of the vote statewide against Elizabeth Warren in the U.S. Senate contest and beat her by a point in Plymouth County (where Trump had done relatively well too). Republican Governor Charlie Baker was reelected 1,781,982 (66.8%) to 886,281 (33.2%) against Democrat Jay Gonzalez, winning every county in the state in his massive landslide. And the state elects Republicans to the state legislature too. There are 31 Republicans in the 160-member state House and after the 2018 election the 40-member state Senate had 6 Republicans. As of yesterday, though, there are just 4 Republicans in the state Senate.

Yesterday saw two special elections to replace Republicans who retired. As we explained a couple of months ago, Republicans Donald Humason (who didn't even have an opponent in 2018!) and Vinny deMacedo resigned from their seats, respectively in Hampden and Hampshire and in Plymouth and Barnstable. In the primaries, there were clear signals that these two red districts-- both of which had voted for Trump in 2018-- were going to go blue. In the Hampden and Hampshire district, 20,848 people voted for the Democrat and just 5,586 came out to vote for the Republican. That's quite a disparity. There was also one in the other district, where 32,858 Democrats voted in the primary but just 14,755 Republicans.

Yesterday, the two seats flipped, auguring very badly for Republicans in 2020. The chairman of the state Democratic Party, Gus Bickford, said the big defeats reflected a rejection of Señor Trumpanzee's politics. John Velis, a conservative Democrat, beat John Cain in Humason's district (which hadn't elected a Democrat in 25 years) in a landslide-- 64-36%. And Democrat Susan Moran beat Republican Trumpist James McMahon 10,780 (55%) to 8,927 (45%).

Both special elections had been scheduled for March 31 but were postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and were carried out with both traditional in-person voting and the use of mail-in voting, an option that lawmakers are weighing for the Sept. 1 primary and Nov. 3 general election.

"Two areas that were strong for Donald Trump a few years ago came back home and voted blue tonight," Democratic Party Chair Gus Bickford said in a statement Tuesday night. "Democrats and independents are united now more than ever, and we will continue to work together through the fall. These two flipped seats are a sign of things to come in a few months."

..."Not only is this a great day for Senator-elect Moran, it's a great day for her new constituents and their fellow Bay Staters," said Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. "Her victory flipped a seat that had been previously held by a staunch anti-choice politician and prevented it from falling into the hands of another."

On June 2, voters are scheduled to settle two House special elections to fill seats held until recently by Jennifer Benson of Lunenburg and Shaunna O'Connell of Taunton. Benson left the House to work as president of the Alliance for Business Leadership and O'Connell resigned after being elected as mayor of her hometown last November.

Democrat Carol Doherty and Republican Kelly Dooner, both of Taunton, are competing in the Third Bristol House district. In the 37th Middlesex district, Democrat Danillo Sena of Acton faces Republican Catherine Clark of Lunenburg.

Blue America concentrates on congressional seats and the only times we get involved in state legislative races is when we sense a candidate is so extraordinary that they are destined for Congress or for statewide office. This cycle we are looking at several candidates around the country and so far we have endorsed just three. You can find them by clicking on the 2020 Blue America state legislative races thermometer above. Remember, some of the best and most effective members of Congress, like Red Lieu (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) honed their skills in their states' legislatures. Two of our top congressional candidates-- Jon Hoadley (D-MI) and Tom Winter (D-MT)-- are currently-serving members of their state legislatures.

Trump and his enablers are getting blamed for the incompetent and dysfunctional U.S. response to the pandemic, If that keeps building, especially if Wave II is as strong as I expect it to be, the November anti-red electoral wave is going to be mighty strong.

DCCC Lost All The Races Yesterday-- But Progressives Did Well

DCCC chair Cheri Bustos should resign

Last night 3 important congressional races ended. Nancy Pelosi, Cheri Bustos and their DCCC need to think closely about what happened. One contest was a primary in Omaha and two were special elections to fill seats in Wisconsin and California where members had retired, respectively one Republican and one Democrat. In each special election, the victor will fill the seat until January, at which point the winner of the regular November election will take the seat.

Let's start, though, with the primary in Nebraska. Kara Eastman, a community activist and outspoken progressive, beat Ann Ashford the wife of the former (defeated) Blue Dog congressman, Brad Ashford, in a two-to-one landslide. The DCCC was less overt in their support for Ann Ashford than they had been in their over-the-top backing for Brad in the 2018 primary. In 2018, Kara beat Brad Ashford 21,357 (51.6%) to 19,998 (48.4%). The DCCC was so incensed that Kara beat their pet Blue Dog that they removed NE-02 from their priority list and refused to help Kara win. She only lost by a 2 point margin against GOP incumbent Don Bacon-- 126,715 (51.0%) to 121,770 (49.0%). Let's not allow that to happen again this coming November. Please write to Cheri Bustos and Nancy Pelosi and demand they support Kara Eastman this cycle-- and contribute to her here or by click on the 2020 congressional thermometer on the right.

Yesterday's primary showed Kara with a great deal or-- and much more-- support, despite the Ashfords pouring over $350,000 of their own money into her campaign.

The Omaha World-Herald reported that Kara "earned her chance for a rematch against the two-term Republican incumbent Tuesday night by topping two other rivals in her party’s primary. She immediately took aim at Bacon, saying his record of reliable votes for President Donald Trump and his party don’t fit in a swing district like the Omaha-area 2nd. 'People are looking for leadership and for representation that actually represents the district, and not just somebody who’s going to align himself with his party,' Eastman said."

Two years after a fired-up base of progressives helped upstart Eastman upset former congressman Brad Ashford in the Democratic primary, she easily outpolled his wife, Ann Ashford, and Omaha restaurateur Gladys Harrison in Tuesday’s vote.

That gave her a second chance against Bacon, who beat her by just fewer than 5,000 votes-- about 2% of all cast-- in the 2018 general election. She said she thinks it will be a different race this time.

“It’s already very different in the direction this country has moved,” she said.

...A centrist former Republican, Ashford echoed Bacon from two years earlier in arguing that Eastman’s policies are too extreme for most voters in a district that includes Douglas County and western Sarpy County.

The key example both Ashford and Bacon cite is Eastman’s support for “Medicare for All,” the single-player, universal health care system that would do away with private health insurance.

But the 48-year-old Eastman hasn’t backed down from her support for the health care plan championed by liberal firebrand Bernie Sanders, noting the coronavirus pandemic has exposed the pitfalls of a system that mostly relies on people getting their health insurance through their employer.

Eastman offered herself as “an authentic Democrat.” And much like two years ago, she benefited from an army of grassroots progressive volunteers, who shifted this spring from going door to door to making thousands of calls from phone banks.

...Eastman and Bacon now enter a fall campaign that will likely be heavily influenced by the top-of-ticket battle between Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden. While the two congressional candidates competed two years ago, the presidential race is sure to change the dynamics.

Bacon on Tuesday night said he wished the president were at times more diplomatic. But on issues from abortion to taxes to trade, he said, the president’s positions align well with the district.

“I want that conservative philosophy in the White House,” he said.

Bacon also believes Trump’s supporters will be highly motivated in November. The Republican wave that Trump created in 2016 helped Bacon to his 1-point victory over then-incumbent Brad Ashford.

...But Democrats are heavily motivated to oust Trump, which could drive Democratic turnout in the swing district. And this time Eastman will have the support of the national Democratic establishment, which failed to jump in with both feet to help her when she lost narrowly two years ago.

In charging she is too extreme, Eastman said, Bacon is just “following the Republican playbook” in a race he knows he’s in danger of losing.

“He’ll say that I’m too extreme when he has voted 95% of the time with Donald Trump, and even signed a pledge to not disagree with the president, which is crazy,” Eastman said. “He is the definition of extreme.”

No one expected the Wisconsin special election to switch the 7th district from red to blue. The PVI is R+8 and when Sean Duffy was reelected in 2018 against Democrat Margaret Engebretson, it was a 60.1% to 38.5% wipeout, Duffy winning 23 of the 26 counties, including the 3 big ones, Marathon, St. Croix and Oneida. Although Obama won the district in 2008, he lost to Romney in 2012 and Trump beat Hillary decisively-- 57.7% to 37.3%.

Last night Tom Tiffany was an easy winner over Democrat Tricia Zunker, 109,592 (57.22%) to 81,928 (42.78%). Zunker, president of the Wausau School Board and an associate justice for the Ho-Chunk Nation Supreme Court, did better than either Margaret Engebretson did in 2018 or then Hillary had done in 2016. But not better enough. They will face off again in November. Zunker addressed her supporters last night on Facebook Live, noting that "we laid the groundwork for a Democratic win in November. This isn’t the result we were hoping for, but we did something incredible here. We did something that no one thought a Democrat in this district could do, in spite of a global pandemic. We did something incredible despite the fact that legislators refused to switch to mail-in voting to protect the health and safety of Wisconsinites." Tiffany outraised her by over a million dollars. Their debates were about issues like abortion and gun control.

The other special election-- in CA-25 (Santa Clarita Valley, Antelope Valley and Simi Valley-- was more of a contest. Although the district has a Democratic registration advantage, Republican Mike Garcia, a Trump loyalist, beat Christy Smith, a centrist Democrat. As of this month, the voter registration numbers were very much favorable to the Democrats:

• Democrats- 161,693 (38.41%)
• Republicans- 133,771 (31.78%)
• No party preference- 98,717 (23.45%)

Although Christy Smith was offering nothing but another centrist nothing-- with lots of meaningless partisan endorsements and a meaningless platform-- I predicted she would win anyway, albeit narrowly (and she well may in November). At the time, I noted that her only chance to win would be to reach out to the 6.5% of primary voters who had cast primary ballots for progressive Cenk Uygur and consolidate the Democratic vote. She chose to reach out to Republicans instead and ignore progressives. That proved our "Anonymous Strategist" correct this past Sunday when he predicted she would lose, unable to inspire Democrats to vote.

This morning I reached out to Cenk and asked him why he thought she lost. He was kind:

Republicans vote more. It was a low turnout election and they almost always win those. Probably any Democratic candidate would have lost but the Democratic Party's insistence on picking the least dynamic or populist candidate doesn't help. Mike Garcia was more populist than Steve Knight and the whole Republican Party supported him and helped him win the primary. On the Democratic side, the party despises populism so they all went in very aggressively for the establishment candidate. In primaries, especially very short ones like this, party endorsements make a huge difference and the establishment rules the day. In general elections, undecided voters have the opposite motivation-- they don't like the establishment.

  The Republican Party gives their candidates the trappings of outsiders and the Democratic Party gives their candidates the appearance of being insiders. Independent voters don't like insiders. They're independents-- by definition they're outsiders. It also doesn't help that the Democratic Party leaders are lions against progressives in primaries and lambs against Republicans in the general. How much more vitriolic were they against me than Mike Garcia? If they fought him half as hard as they fought me, they might have had a chance.

This is what happens when the Democratic Party establishment backs candidates with nothing to offer but someone they imagine is the lesser of two evils. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. This time didn't. This one wasn't even close:

CA-25 Special Election Tuesday-- Top Democratic Strategist Predicts Christy Smith Is Toast

As you may recall, about a month and a half ago I predicted that the awful Democratic candidate, Christy Smith, would narrowly beat the awful Republican candidate, Mike Garcia. The election is this coming Tuesday, although, many (most ?) voters have sent in their ballots already. And that doesn't look good for my prediction. I asked a top political strategist, someone who makes the big bucks, to write it as a guest post. He agreed but said I couldn't use his name unless I paid $5K. So... we'll just call him "An Anonymous Strategist."

Microcosm-- CA-25
-by Anonymous Strategist
This coming Tuesday’s Special Election (for Katie Hill’s congressional seat) in Southern California is on a lot of people’s minds. Some people are seeing Trump’s tweets calling the election rigged. Some people are hearing about congressional Democrats’ hysterical attempts to lower expectations. While these instances represent the extremes of the right (Trump’s GOP) and the left (not the progressive left, the corporate/establishment left), a really interesting finale to what should have been an easy win for Democrats is coming together.

In my opinion, there is a greater than 60% chance that Democrats lose this election on Tuesday, and it flips from Blue to Red.

Why do I think that?

Given the vote by mail nature of California (and the COVID-19 realities), election day doesn't matter as much as trends in ballots returned. Remember that as you read the next three paragraphs. Ballots, ballots, ballots...

By this point, there are far too many likely GOP ballots returned to the registrar and far too few likely DEM ballots returned. Given the Democratic registration advantage in the district, we should be seeing about an even return at this point. It’s fair to argue that Republican voters do tend to return ballots quicker (upon receiving them in the mail) however by this weekend (GOTV weekend) you should see an uptick in Democratic ballots that would make DEM totals about even with GOP totals. That’s currently not happening. And it's actually not that close.

Additionally, the ballots being returned skew heavily older than the electorate as a whole (particularly the 2018 electorate which sent Katie Hill to Congress for a few months). Given COVID-19, it’s not as though you will see a surge of poll voters on Tuesday large enough to make up for this heavily skewed (older) electorate.

Finally, the ballots being returned are skewing heavily White (Anglo) in a district that is Majority Minority (Hispanic). Yes, it’s true, that like Democrats as a whole, Latinos vote “late.” But this is too late. Again, it’s not as though you’ll see a surge in Latino vote at the polls large enough to make up for the current trend.

So, that’s why I think we (Democrats) are headed for a loss Tuesday.

There’s no doubt the Democratic Party and organized labor machines are flooding the district with paid election workers trying to “collect” (yes, it’s legal) as many Latino ballots as possible this weekend. I’m sure that’s why Trump is crying “rigged election” -- namely due to the fact he’s unable to comprehend that ballot collection is legal in California. If he were able to cool his jets and understand this basic concept, he’d actually see a way to use it to his advantage in November. I bet Brad Parscale (his savvy manager) understands this.

All kidding and levity aside, this is a big problem for Democrats, granted it’s not a new problem. They consistently use a wildly flawed methodology when recruiting candidates (and stifling potentially good ones). They recruited Christy Smith because they knew that given her corporate/establishment ties, she’d be able to have the best chance at raising the money necessary to advertise in such an expensive district (L.A. Media Market). However, they keep forgetting that these elections (especially special elections) are about motivation, not persuasion. Persuading the so called “middle” does not matter at all. ZERO. Base turnout does, and it seems as though the base doesn’t give a shit.

That’s a microcosm for November.

A couple more things to consider:

1- In the jungle primary 2 months ago, Smith got 57,423 votes (36.1%) and Garcia got 40,311 votes (25.4%).

2- Garcia has a Hispanic name; Smith sounds like a Republican name.

3- As of April 22, Smith had spent $1,946,261 and Garcia had spent virtually the same amount ($1,908,185). The DCCC spent $1,687,850 and Pelosi's Super PAC spent $501,839 and the NRCC spent $1,470,366 while McCarthy's Super PAC spent $637,264. So it's all about even.

4- Top Democratic Party officials agree with Anonymous Strategist that Smith is going to lose, not with my prediction that she's going to squeak through despite what a truly terrible candidate she is.

5- In a district like CA-25, where Hillary beat Trump and where Trump is generally despised, this endorsement Saturday morning should do more harm than good:

Big Test Of The Anti-Red Wave Theory Comes In 2 Weeks-- In A California Special Election

Did you know there's a big special election on May 12, two weeks from yesterday? Remember when Katie Hill resigned after a sex scandal. This is the special election to replace her until the November election decides who represents CA-25 (the Santa Clarita Valley, most of the Antelope Valley and most of Simi Valley) for the next two years. The winner of the special win face the loser of the special again in November.

This is the perfect opportunity for the GOP to steal back a blue seat-- no incumbent and a dreadful Democratic candidate in what is expected to be a super-low turnout election. Or will it be?

158,849 people voted in the jungle primary. 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans were on the ballot. The combined Democratic vote was 80,387 (50.5%) and the combined Republican vote was 78,462 (49.4%)-- very, very close. The two top vote getters will be in the run-off in 2 weeks:

• Christy Smith (D)- 57,423 (36.1%)
• Mike Garcia (R)- 40,311 (25.4%)

As of March 31, Smith had spent $1,512,159 and had $357,257 in her warchest and Garcia had spent $1,426,856 and had $446,743 in his warchest. The DCCC has spent $1,687,850 to hold onto the seat, while the NRCC and McCarthy's Congressional Leadership PAC have spent $886,767 + $439,291 ($1,326,058).





The keys for Smith to win is to consolidate all the Democratic support in the district, to win over the huge independent vote and to turn out the base. A couple of years ago, Democrats finally became the plurality party in the district:

• Democrats- 161,693 (38.41%)
• Republicans- 133,771 (31.78%)
• Others (including decline-to state)- 95,090 (29.81%)

The key to consolidating Democratic votes are the 10,391 progressives (6.5%) who backed Cenk Uygur in the primary. Smith is a classic lesser of two evils candidate. It would be hard for any progressive who knows anything about her to vote for her. The Democrats couldn't have found a worse candidate to run. In trying to say something in favor of her, Uygur told me that "Primaries are the most important part of our election system. Once you get to the general election in a U.S. election you have only two choices an overwhelming percentage of the time. This is also true in CA-25. I only endorse candidates who I know will not take corporate money. In terms of who to vote for in CA-25, that's relatively easy. Mike Garcia has all of the downsides of Christy Smith without any of the upsides. Garcia claimed Steve Knight wasn't pro-Trump enough-- Knight voted with Trump 99% of the time. Anyone who proudly claims that being with Trump 99% of the time isn't enough isn't fit for office. I wouldn't vote for Mike Garcia under penalty of law." He told me his guess is that his supporters will vote for Smith but added that he's "really guessing. Voters generally vote. I don't know how many non-regular voters I got to come out for me in such a short election. If anyone who voted for me got the idea that Mike Garcia would be better, then they didn't listen to a word I said."

The Cook Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball both rate the race a toss-up, while Inside Elections rates it as "likely Democrat." Yesterday, Rachel Bitecofer took a look at how the race has developed and wrote that she is "hesitant to say the CA-25 special election... will be a bellwether, but it’s the best chance Republicans have at reclaiming one of these seats this cycle. Democrats have been hesitant to spend heavily on the race whereas Republicans, increasingly bearish about their fall prospects under Trump, badly need any positive optics they can rustle up, and unlike other 2020 races where fundraising and candidate recruitment have reflected a hostile political atmosphere that still favors Democrats, their recruitment effort in California’s 25th district produced a top-notch nominee."

Bitecofer, who I generally think is a great prognosticator finds it easy to say that Garcia, a dangerous sociopath and walking freakshow who wants to spend his time in office licking Trump's ass, is "a top-notch nominee." She can't find it in her to describe what an utterly worthless catastrophe of a candidate Christie Smith is.

Ironically, outside of gender, Democrats struggle to embrace the electoral power of descriptive representation (i.e., identity politics) when it comes to candidate recruitment; however, Republicans have long understood the benefits of recruiting and running minority candidates in diverse districts. It is a strategy that has worked well for them in both Florida and Texas, and one they’re hoping might mitigate a massive demographic advantage for Democrats on the 25th. Their candidate, Mike Garcia, has an impressive background as a Navy fighter pilot, and perhaps more relevant for the GOP’s electoral purposes, Garcia’s Ballotpedia entry provided by his campaign notes he is a “first-generation American citizen whose family came to the United States legally.” Republicans hope he may be able to pull over some voters from the district’s 37-percent Latino population and potentially erode some of the Democrats’ advantage among this core voting bloc.

As my 2018 voter file analysis of the district reveals, a surge in turnout among Latino voters played a pivotal role in the district’s transition from red to blue. They doubled their 2014 turnout rate of 25 percent to 54 percent despite a massive uptick in registrations. As such, a strategy that offsets Democrats’ advantages among Latinos is critical for Republican efforts to reclaim these, and similarly situated, seats. So, CA-25 may be a beta test for the more expansive strategy the GOP plans to deploy in 2020 in similar districts and states such as Arizona, where the party is poised to lose a second Senate seat and see the longtime Republican stronghold flip to the Democrats in the Electoral College.

But it’s hard to predict what will happen because, although a special election normally has lower participation, and one that occurs during a pandemic may have even lower-than-normal turnout due to the inability of campaigns to engage in critical get-out-the-vote activities, as the pandemic emerged, the state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, issued an executive order switching the election to an entirely vote-by-mail system, which could cause a turnout increase. Unlike most of the other California districts from 2018, the 25th has a modest registration advantage for Democrats and every voter in the district received a ballot. For now, I remain bullish on Democrats holding onto this seat.

As I discussed in my presidential forecast, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, I was anticipating something approaching-- perhaps even reaching-- 70 percent turnout in the 2020 general election, which is about 10 points higher than the 2016 turnout and would be history-making. This prediction was driven by the fact that 2018 midterm turnout increased just over 13 points over its 2014 levels (I was expecting about 10 points) and that based on my own calculation, in contests and cycles since Trump’s 2016 election, the average turnout increase has been about 10 points. The 2018 election overperformed my bold estimates because, unlike with Democrats during Obama’s tenure, turnout of Republicans in 2018 did not decline, it increased.

The image of a disaffected Republican Party, embarrassed by their “chaos” president, so far runs into an irrefutable data-reality that Republican voter turnout, even in the 40 suburban districts Democrats flipped, was robust — and it did not break in favor of Democrats in rates any higher than normal for the polarized era. Instead, the blue wave that washed through America’s suburbs in 2018 was powered by a massive turnout of Democrats and independents, who showed up in droves to toss Republican House incumbents out of office and send a message to Donald Trump. 

Personally, I will never cast a vote for an evil candidate-- even if it's a much lesser evil-- and Christie Smith has every intention of going to Congress and being one of the worst Democrats in the House. She's a corporate shill who will always disappoint, just as she has in her short, putrid time in Sacramento. But if I had to guess, I'd say she'll probably win in two weeks and again in November. I think she'll win for the same reason Biden will-- because most people are happy enough to vote against someone rather than for someone.

Party hack

Transpartisan Failure

Our political leadership-- and not just Trump-- has failed us... dismally so. Even blue state governors like Andrew Cuomo (New York), Phil Murphy (New Jersey) and Gavin Newsom (California) have been taking ineffective baby steps that have already been proven to only make the pandemic worse. Like Trump, they are more afraid to be blamed for an economic turn-down than to watch thousands and perhaps millions of Americans die. Despite bad examples of behavior with resultant calamity in Italy, Spain and Holland and good examples with quicker resolution in Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea, they have all been masters of "too little too late," thereby putting us all at risk-- and showing how utterly worthless they are as political "leaders." The American people are savvier about the pandemic then our political leaders are. A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll by Hart Research.

Although most Americans report that they have not changed their behavior in ways that could slow down the pandemic, most still recognize that Trump has failed in protecting the country:

47% of respondents say they have either stopping attending large public gatherings like movies, concerts or sporting events or plan to, while 49% have neither stopped nor intend to stop. It gets worse when asked about canceling travel plans and eating in restaurants. Just 36% have canceled or rescheduled travel plans-- as opposed to 58% who have not or don't plan to-- and just 26% have stopped eating in restaurants, as opposed to 69% who have not stopped eating in restaurants. Americans are worried-- but not worried enough to act on those worries. One of my sisters-- the Trumpier one-- refused to cancel plans for a cruise. The cruise company canceled it. She also planned to see a Michael Bublé concert in Atlantic City last week and much to her chagrin-- she insists this is all "media hype"-- the concert was canceled. Last week I stopped wearing my hospital masks and started wearing a heavy duty N-99 Base Camp mask with exhalation valves whenever I go out. I noticed that when I wore it to the grocery store over tiger weekend, I was the only one in the entire (huge) store with any kind of a mask and that everyone looked at me as though I had the plague and moved quickly away from my vicinity-- a bonus as far as I was concerned.

Excursion to the grocery store for more daikon root

At every step of the way, conservative politicians have prioritized the economy over health. Kara Eastman, the Omaha progressive running against one of those conservative politicians, Donald Bacon (R), told me yesterday that "Our fractured and inefficient collection of private and public health programs leaves millions of Americans out in the cold during a crisis like COVD-19. A well-designed national health program would cover every U.S. resident and would ensure timely care for those who need it most. The fact is that millions of American citizens in our growing gig-economy are at risk and single payer can greatly mitigate that risk." Jim Harper, the progressive candidate for the open blue seat in northwest Indiana. He had a similar perspective. "Every day," he told me, "I meet Hoosiers who are terrified about their ability to access healthcare during this public health crisis. They know that our healthcare system is broken and that the inability of some to access care puts everyone at risk during this public health crisis. Medicare for All would ensure universal healthcare was important before this pandemic. But the current public health crisis shows how serious the issue is and how Medicare for All would protect all Americans."

Trumpist Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was on This Week yesterday when Jonathan Karl asked him if the pandemic would cause a recession, which every credible economist is predicting. Being part of the Trump Regime requires lying... so he did. "I don't think so. The real issue is not the economic situation today… This is a unique situation. We are going to have a slowdown. Later in the year economic activity will pick up as we confront this virus." Except the U.S. isn't even close to adequately confronting the pandemic so it will only get worse and the chances of escaping a humongous recession will diminish. Larry Elliott reported for The Guardian that travel bans, prohibitions on mass gatherings like sporting events and concerts, stock markets in freefall, deserted shopping malls (and the coming closures of restaurants, bars, schools, most service jobs and pretty much anything other than grocery stores and pharmacies), we need to prepare for a global recession.

If history is any guide, the global economy will eventually recover from the Covid-19 pandemic, but the idea that this is going to be a V-shaped recession in the first half of 2020 followed by a recovery in the second half of the year looks absurd after the tumultuous events of the past week.

What’s more, policymakers know as much. The Federal Reserve-- the US central bank-- does not need to be told by Donald Trump that it needs to cut interest rates and resume large-scale asset purchases known as quantitative easing. Wall Street is looking to the Fed to pull out all the stops when it meets on Wednesday and the world’s most powerful central bank cannot afford to disappoint.

In the UK the coordinated response by the Bank of England and the Treasury last week was seen as a textbook example of how policymakers ought to respond to the crisis. It was, though, only the start. Airline companies will quickly go bust unless they receive financial assistance. The same goes for retailers, many of them hanging on by their fingertips even before Covid-19. Britain has a new chancellor of the exchequer in Rishi Sunak and, from Monday, a new governor of the Bank of England in Andrew Bailey, and they will both be aware that the risks of doing too little too late are far greater than those of doing too much too soon.

So, in the coming weeks the Bank can be expected to cut interest rates to 0.1%-- the lowest they have ever been-- and to resume its QE programme. Sunak will have to add to the £12bn he has set aside to deal with Covid-19.

As in 2008-09, the authorities in the eurozone have been slowest to act but there have been welcome signs in recent days-- from Germany, most significantly-- of the need for governments to spend, and spend big.

The perfect time to implement Medicare-for-All.

Mark Levine is a City Councilman and chair of the City Council Health Committee in hard-hit NYC. On Sunday he came clean with his constituents: "Our city is facing a mounting threat in the coronavirus epidemic. We must move aggressively-- now-- to slow the outbreak in New York City. This is going to require extreme measures to ensure that the public avoids crowded places to the maximum extent possible. That is why I support the closure of all non-essential services, including schools, bars, restaurants, gyms, movie theaters, and courthouses."

Moments later it was announced that all NYC schools would close "until April 20," a silly aspirational random date.

New Yorkers shouldn’t wait for such an order to take responsibility for their own actions. I urge everyone to avoid any and all social gatherings if at all possible. We all need to adhere to aggressive social distancing, slow the spread, of the virus to protect the vulnerable, and prevent our health system from becoming overwhelmed.

Those who can work from home should. Families who are able to keep their children home from school should. If you must travel to work and are able to walk or bike you should.

And if you are feeling ill, it is imperative that you stay home. You should not go to work, you should not be in public.

And here’s the hardest part: if you are only mildly ill with COVID-19 symptoms (fever, dry cough) and do not have other health complications, you should not go to the hospital. You should rest at home and have a phone by your side to call for a doctor if your condition worsens. These extraordinary recommendations are necessary because we must preserve every element of our healthcare system for the seriously ill, as the number of coronavirus cases continues to rise.

These coming weeks and months will be a time of unprecedented challenges for our city.

Our world; and, possibly, our species.

It has been clear from the start that Covid-19 affects both sides of the economy: supply and demand. The supply of goods and services is impaired because factories and offices are shut and output falls as a result. But demand also falls because consumers stay at home and stop spending, and businesses mothball investment.

Conventional policy measures-- such as cutting the cost of borrowing or reducing taxes-- tend to work better when there is a demand shock. There is a limit to what they can do in the event of a combined supply and demand shock.

...[T]he economic disruption caused by Covid-19 is enormous. Entire countries-- Italy and Spain-- are in lockdown. The problems facing airline companies are symptomatic of a crisis facing the global travel industry, from cruise companies to hotels that cater for tourists. Discretionary spending by consumers appears to have collapsed in recent days.

Despite globalisation, much economic activity remains local but here, too, there will be an impact as people cancel appointments at the dentist, put off having their hair cut and wait to put their house on the market.

Paul Dales, the chief UK economist at Capital Economics, has estimated that output in Britain will shrink by 2.5% in the second quarter but says a 5% fall is possible. The more pessimistic estimate looks quite plausible.

What’s more, in a service-sector dominated economy much of the lost output is never going to be recovered. If people do not go out to their weekly meal at their favourite local restaurant for the next two months they are not going to eat out four times a week when the fear of infection has been lifted.

It also seems likely that the economic pain will go on for longer than originally estimated. Having imposed bans and restrictions, governments and private-sector bodies will be cautious about removing them. Countries such as Italy will be wary of opening their borders while there is a fear of reinfection. The idea that Premier League football will be back by early April is fanciful.

There is also a question of how long it will take consumer and business confidence to recover. Policy action by central banks and finance ministries can help in this respect but only so much. The chances are that the imminent recession will be U-shaped: a steep decline followed by a period of bumping along the bottom. There will be recovery but it will take time and only after much damage has been caused.

People who tell you schools will reopen later in the month or next month or that "postponed" events will be rescheduled soon are either stupid or deceitful. Our politicians need to do two things immediately:

• remote voting for Congress and state legislatures
• removing voting for primaries and the 2020 general election

Immediately means now. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf did the right thing by ordering a total lockdown for Bucks and Chester counties but the Speaker of the state House, Michael Turzai (R), is refusing to postpone the election, knowing it is the only chance the GOP has to hold onto the seat.

Jay Ponti wrote over the weekend that words like "reckless," "criminal," and "villainous" only begin to describe the Democratic Party’s "willingness to threaten the lives of voters by not postponing voting at the polls" due to the pandemic.

The NHL, NBA and MLS have shut down.

Italy’s government imposed the closure of restaurants, bars and almost all shops except food stores and pharmacies. Three weeks ago Italian citizens were going about their day, business as usual, and today the country is in chaos.

Given the alarming rate of contagion, our country may be on the verge of the worst health catastrophe in modern U.S. history.

World leaders. A-list Hollywood actors. Members of Congress have tested positive for Covid-19. Not even POTUS was able to avoid being exposed to the virus that is ten times deadlier than the flu.

The difference between them and millions of poor people is that they have access to the best health care and will be at low risk to die from exposure.

Major museums, schools, and Universities. All closed.

Fucking Disney World.

Why? Because lives are at stake.

AEG has canceled Coachella and all North American concerted tours, but the democratic party is determined to put thousands of lives at risk just so it can push through their establishment candidate, Joe Biden.

The extent to which the virus is contained depends entirely on how the country responds to the crisis. Singapore and Taiwan are the gold standards in Coronavirus containment.

“While other countries waffled on acknowledging the danger of the outbreak, Taiwan took action immediately under the guidance of its National Health Command Center, which the country established after the deadly SARS outbreak in 2003 that killed 73 people there.”

Anywhere there are crowds of people in public is an unacceptable risk.

It is not overstating to say that holding primaries in the middle of a global pandemic is state-sanctioned genocide. To continue down this path following the fiascos in California and Texas that witnessed voters in line for up to 2–4 hours. Who were these people who stood in line for hours, refusing to be denied their sacred franchise?

Poor and working black and Latino voters.

These will be the ones to suffer the worst impact.

The effects won’t stop there. We need to understand that it is not just those who are infected in public spaces. It will affect the loved ones at home and everyone else that each infected person comes into contact with. Elders are the highest risk. Approximately 70–80% of senior citizens in other countries contracted the virus from a family member.

The only way to “flatten the curve” of Coronavirus is through quarantine. Global supply chains have been disrupted due to Trump’s trade war. Critical supplies for citizens and health workers like n95 respirator masks are all running out. The administration has forced the CDC to cut spending.

We are at a watershed moment.

The shelves of supermarkets are already being stripped bare, but we have not begun to see the worst.

We are in the moment when the shoreline is receding before the tipping point when the tsunami hits. The administration has been aware of this virus since December and has done nothing about it. Are we to believe that no one in the democratic leadership has been aware of this or the decimation of the CDC? Did anyone raise the alarm? Where was our media?

Failed leadership. Our institutions continue to fail us.

Liam O'Mara is the progressive Democrat and history professor running for the Riverside County congressional seat held by corrupt and incompetent Trump stooge Ken Calvert. O'Mara, however, knows that the incompetence isn't partisan and that there are Democrats every bit as bad as Republicans. This morning je told me that "Recently John Delaney tweeted that during a pandemic was a bad time to be discussing Medicare for all. With all due respect, it is the best time to be discussing it, since if we had done it decades ago we would be in far better shape to face a pandemic. Better late than never, though, and we need to be looking at how to prepare America for health care emergencies. Outbreaks like this are as inevitable as the sunrise-- they have recurred throughout history, and the best we can do is to be ready for them. Medicare helps to accomplish that, so here are a few points to consider:

Recently John Delaney tweeted that during a pandemic was a bad time to be discussing Medicare for all. With all due respect, it's a great time, since if we'd done it decades ago we would be in far better shape to face a pandemic. Better late than never-- we need to prepare America for health care emergencies. Outbreaks are as inevitable as the sunrise; they've recurred throughout history, and the best we can do is to be ready. Medicare helps to accomplish that, so here are a few points to consider:

1. 28 million Americans are uninsured, and tens of millions more are under-insured, with large co-pays and deductibles. People cannot afford to seek treatment and have been conditioned by experience not to try. It doesn't matter if the gov. says, "come on and get tested, it's free"-- lots of people won't hear it and a lot more won't believe it. (In fact, they should not, since our leaders have already lied about what they are providing in the way of emergency relief. Consider the sick-pay issue and the exemptions offered to so many businesses.) People who seek treatment for COVID-19 can get stuck with huge bills they cannot afford, raising again the spectre of ruined lives. We are the only rich country in the world where people declare bankruptcy over illnesses.

2. Without actual coverage, many Americans will be forced into emergency rooms when their symptoms get too bad to ignore. This can swiftly overwhelm capacity, since the need for profit slows investment in hospital capacity. We do not have existing capacity to treat a major pandemic regardless-- look back to the Spanish Flu of 1918, and at what China did in Wuhan, for an example of what is needed to manage a large-scale outbreak. But emergency rooms are especially costly and easily overrun by high demand, and the lack of regular coverage makes them the only option for many. This is a problem unique in the rich world, and makes no logical sense.

3. Cost considerations have compromised our readiness in other ways-- health care centres nationwide are short of equipment needed to treat a pandemic, from masks and sterilizing agents on down to beds and staff. As it is, rural America is chronically short of health care providers. The need to make a profit from health care leads to very different calculations than a simple emphasis on the public good.

4. Regular check-ups and preventive care also increase the resilience of a population. We are the 35th healthiest population in the world, despite extraordinary spending on health care, so we are getting poor value for our money. With universal health care, Americans would be healthier overall, and we would not have a large pool of citizens & residents who never see a provider and may be at higher risk due to untreated chronic heart & lung illnesses.

5. And again, lack of coverage means that by the time many seek treatment, their condition will be quite bad, and they'll have exposed more people, both at the medical facility and in their daily lives and workplaces. 44% of Americans report they do not seek treatment when sick due to cost. The outrageous cost of health care in the US puts us all at far greater risk. This is inexcusable. It's time for Medicare for all.

Nabilah Islam doesn't agree with John Delaney's position any more than Liam is. She's running for an open suburban seat north of Atlanta and a few hours ago she told us that "There is nothing I have more confidence in than the American people and our ability to persevere. I know that like we have in the past so many times, we will too overcome the coronavirus. What we CANNOT do is wait for the next pandemic to fight and pass Medicare for All. While the costs of testing are being waived, what about the cost of treatment? Without a centralized system, we will have a hard time streamlining supply orders. By states and hospitals estimating bed counts by the insured instead of populations, we will not have the capacity needed. If the coronavirus has shown us anything, we need Medicare for All Now."

Montana state Rep and congressional candidate Tom Winter reminded us that "It shouldn't have taken a global pandemic for us to finally realize our government and healthcare system does not work for America's working families. I've been working as a state legislator throughout this crisis to connect public health and healthcare professionals with our state and local government to help with triage plans and general preparedness. What immediately jumped out to me was how little capacity our hospitals and healthcare providers have to deal with an influx of patients. If the other wealthy countries of the world that have single payer healthcare systems-- and much greater capacity than us-- are bending to their breaking points as this pandemic reaches new levels, then I worry our system is woefully unprepared for the approaching storm. In the meantime, our politics is finally catching up on certain baseline policies like guaranteeing paid sick leave, waiving out-of-pocket expenses for life-saving testing and care, lowering drug costs, and countless other commonsense things that already exist in single payer systems. When we get through this crisis I think Americans will have a much greater appreciation for the security a single payer healthcare system could provide for their family's health. Not to mention the blowback that will happen when we all realize the ridiculousness that all of these life-saving policies were only temporary. Healthcare is a right for all, whether we are in a pandemic or not."

Even With The Pandemic Ravaging The World, The Greediest And Most Repulsive Among Us-- Take Lloyd Blankfein-- Still Oppose Medicare-for-All

My friend Frank Schaeffer hasn't been a Republican for many, many years and he is most certainly a #NeverTrumper. But he's been absolutely fiendish in his instinctual opposition to Bernie. Yesterday, though, he tweeted that after hearing from Trump and Pence that you could get a CODID-19 test at Walmart, he drove over to the one closest to his home in Massachusetts. "All I saw were Walmart employees with no health coverage smoking in the parking lot wondering how they can miss work with no childcare, no money, no savings. Yep, Walmart will save us! Thanks Donald."

I don't know how Frank feels about Medicare-for-All. But I do know how Lloyd Blankfein feels about it. The former Goldman Sachs top bankster hates it as much as he hates Bernie. Here's a Bankster Blankfein tweet from Saturday afternoon advocating for the kind of privatized, for-profit healthcare that Frank Schaeffer found in the Walmart parking lot Sunday morning:

And I found this popular tongue-in-cheek meme in one of the responses to Blankfein's tweet:

This was the video Bernie posted-- narrated by Bernie endorser actor H. Jon Benjamin ( Bob Belcher in Fox’s Bob’s Burgers and Sterling Archer in FX’s Archer)-- that the bankster objected to. Bernie's campaign's description may have ruffled Blankfein's feathers: "From Roosevelt’s attempt to create a New Deal national health insurance program, to the Trump administration’s repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate-- the three-part Bernie’s Damn Bill video series reveals how decades of influence by greedy special interests have led to the present health care crisis. Bernie has waged a four decades-long fight to implement Medicare for All and explains how his administration will take on corporations and the billionaire class to finally make it happen."





Tell me, did you find that clip more informative and more inspiring than Bankster Blankfein did? Here's the second video in the series:





And the third in these series-- a series that you can see helps explain Bankster  Blankfein's enthusiasm for Status Quo Joe, who has recently threatened that if he's nominated by the Democratic Partyand elected president then and Medicare-for-All finally passes, he would probably veto it:





At times like this-- and all other times-- Trump can't help taking on the role of the Ugly American and has offered a German medical company a fortune for exclusive access to a COVID-19 vaccine. The German government is trying to fight off what it sees as an aggressive takeover bid by the U.S. The U.S. Pig-man has "offered the Tübingen-based biopharmaceutical company CureVac 'large sums of money' to gain exclusive access to their work, wrote Die Welt... Trump was doing everything to secure a vaccine against the coronavirus for the U.S., 'but for the US only.'" The loathsome monstrosity sounds like he actually wants to spend eternity roasting in hell.

Because Trump's top New York congressional crony, Chris Collins, was arrested and convicted on multiple charges stemming from his own Blankfein-like advocacy of for-profit (his own) healthcare-- involving a company he owned a plurality of the stock in, Innate Immunotherapeutics-- Collins was forced to resign from Congress, though not before he lied to NY-27 voters about the crime spree and managed to get-- narrowly-- reelected. Nate McMurray, the progressive Democrat who wrestled him to the narrowest congressional win in the whole country-- 140,146 (49.1%) to 139,059 (48.8%)-- will face off in the April 28th special election against hereditary billionaire, gambling magnate and right-wing state Senator Chris Jacobs. Jacobs' reactionary views on healthcare are about the same as Bankster Blankfein's. McMurray made his own clear in a simple tweet yesterday:

McMurray has a slightly longer version on his campaign website:

For years, we have watched large pharmaceutical and insurance companies set higher and higher prices that ultimately barred our access to affordable healthcare.

We can’t continue to let companies set prices and collect massive paychecks while our family members are dying from rationing insulin. The current system hurts families, it hurts businesses and it hurts our community. Common-sense healthcare reform will lower our costs and create a system that benefits everyone. With access to the greatest modern medicine in the world, American citizens deserve to not be kept up at night worrying about whether or not they can pay for their medical needs.

As your Congressman, I will support "Medicare for All" and fight for a system that keeps families healthy. I know we can do better for the citizens of New York 27 and I intend to fight like hell for that when you send me to Washington.

Bordering on McMurray's district, Robin Wilt is the progressive Democrat running for the Rochester, NY congressional seat held by pointless New Dem Joe Morelle. She told us that "NY Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a directive requiring New York health insurers to waive co-pays for Coronavirus tests, as well as any related emergency room, urgent care, and office visits for those who already have insurance. However, if one is not covered by insurance (and in the state of New York, that applies to almost 1 million people), the reality is that the lack of coverage presents a barrier to being tested and treated for the virus. This increases the overall risk of exposure for the population, at large. Steffie Woolhandler, founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, recently observed that the lack of Medicare for All is essentially forcing the United States to fight the COVID-19 pandemic with one hand tied behind its back, thereby increasing the threat to everyone--including the wealthy and people-- with-- insurance. By her example, it is estimated that 25% of cab drivers don’t have health insurance in this country (and that number is probably modest because it does not include rideshare providers like Uber and Lyft); 12% of home health aides lack health insurance; 15% of housekeepers lack health insurance. Essentially, those with means cannot avoid coming into contact with this epidemic just because they’re rich. The amount of wealth one has does not singularly eliminate one’s risk of exposure during a pandemic. We’re all in the risk pool for contracting COVID-19, so we all need to be in the system of care provision for maximum efficacy. That’s why Medicare for All is so important: because everyone being in the system means that no one has barriers to testing or treatment. It’s all about flattening the curve of the spread of the virus. Any barriers to testing or treatment when exposed to the virus, increase the risk of additional exposures. A global pandemic like COVID-19 is the perfect argument for a Medicare for All system."




Qasim Rashid is running for the Virginia congressional seat held by Trump lackey Robert Wittman, VA-01, which includes all of Caroline, Essex, Gloucester, King George, King William, King and Queen, Lancaster, Mathews, Middlesex, Northumberland, Stafford, Westmoreland, and York counties, Fredericksburg city, Williamsburg city and parts of Newport News city plus parts of Faquier, James City, Prince William and Spotsylvania counties. He told us yesterday that "In the richest, most industrialized country on Earth, Americans should never have to worry about the cost of medical care when they are facing injury or illness. In the midst of a global pandemic, guaranteed quality healthcare is even more of a necessity. To treat those afflicted and prevent spread of the disease, we must have a healthcare system where cost is not a barrier to access. We cannot afford to have Americans deciding against getting treatment-- further endangering public safety and creating a scenario where this pandemic overwhelms our hospitals and our communities. A single payer healthcare system that guarantees that every American has access to treatment and care is needed now more than ever."

On the other coast, Mark Gamba is the mayor of Milwaukie, Oregon and running for the congressional seat held by Republican-friendly Blue Dog Kurt Schrader. "This pandemic," he told us, "should be the starkest wake-up-call as to why a national healthcare system that covers every single person is so critical. When millions of people fear going to the doctor because they can’t afford it, they won’t go. Even if they are sick, even if they have a disease that is easily communicable. Those same people are the ones who cannot afford to stay home from work either when they are feeling ill. Instead, they will 'tough it out' and go to work so that they don’t get evicted because they haven’t earned enough money that month to pay the rent. So that means that literally millions of people will be working anyway, even if they are sick. Some of those work for the TSA, some work in restraunts, some in schools, some deliver the mail in busy offices, some work in nursing homes and day care centers. Think about who the people are, that are doing jobs that don’t pay well enough to afford health care. They are the jobs that we count on every day. In some ways, these are the people that we NEED to be the healthiest. They come in contact with the most people. They keep our society functioning. Imagine. Instead, a robust new Medicare for All world. Where everyone has easy, and free access to healthcare when they need it. A world in which there are more doctors. A world in which there are more hospitals and clinics, even in rural areas because they no longer need to 'make a profit,' they simply need to provide healthcare. In this world there are more hospital beds and more ventilators because even in normal times there are more people to treat because EVERYONE gets healthcare. No one is left at home to just die alone because they are too poor. This Medicare for All world is the one that is most prepared for a major pandemic. It’s a world where drugs are invented to solve medical issues, not to maximize profits. We would employ thousands, researching and manufacturing those drugs and other critical materials, like masks and gloves, right here in America rather than farming that out to the lowest international bidder who can then cut us off when it serves them to do so. We need a CDC that is fully funded and working to stop pandemics before they start, and we need Medicare for All to make sure that when they do, we are prepared. We need new leadership in the Whitehouse and Congress to make these things come to pass. The status quo, neo-liberal movement of a world designed for maximizing profits for the rich has failed us."

Despite The Iowa Democratic Party's Screw Ups Tonight, It Looks Like Bernie Won-- And Tomorrow A Berniecrat Can Win A Congressional Seat In Maryland

Immense turn-out in Iowa this evening-- bigger than anyone expected and the biggest in history in some the precincts.

Tomorrow is election day in Baltimore-- actually a special election to fill the open 7th district seat, previously held by Elijah Cummings. The district includes the western and northern parts of the city, plus suburbs and small towns to the west and north of the city in Baltimore and Howard counties. The district is unassailably blue-- PVI is D+26. Blue America endorsed state Senator Jill Carter and yesterday, so did the Baltimore Sun.

The 55-year-old city resident, lawyer and daughter of civil rights leader Walter P. Carter would add a female voice to the Maryland delegation, which has been missing since Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski retired in 2017, and she knows Baltimore-- the heart of the district. Ms. Carter was an early opponent of a mass arrest policy that disproportionately targeted African American residents in the city under the Martin O’Malley mayoral administration. And she has continued the theme of equity in justice and improving opportunities for those caught up in the system ever since.

She was also behind legislation introduced last session to end contracts between the University of Maryland Medical System and its board members, which launched a Baltimore Sun investigation that led to the board’s overhaul, and Mayor Catherine Pugh’s resignation and criminal conviction. And she has long served Maryland: She was also a state delegate for 14 years.

The big criticism that the editors of the Sun managed to offer is that "Senator Carter is considered the most progressive candidate in the race, and some of her ideas lean too far left." That should an incentive for even more people to vote for her than the rest of the endorsement!

It is also expected that Biden's big loss in Iowa today, will reverberate everywhere else. No one wants to back a loser. In fact, Biden's firewall (South Carolina) was already starting to get shaky even before today's verdict. Change Research polled the state's Democratic primary voters and noticed Biden is finally beginning to collapse in South Carolina. Praise the Lord!

The Real Clear Politics polling average still shows Biden way ahead with 30.5%, compared to 17.0% for Bernie, 16.5% for Steyer and 10.5% for Elizabeth. But the new poll tells a familiar story: people get to know who Biden really is and they abandon him in droves:

The Sunday Post and Courier reported that "Biden's hold atop South Carolina Democratic primary polls has never wavered over nearly a year. But the former vice president’s lead continues to slide with the South’s first primary just under a month away. Biden, who once led by as much as 31 percentage points in South Carolina, holds a 5-point edge over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the latest Post and Courier-Change Research poll released Sunday. Biden sits at 25 percent to Sanders’ 20 percent.

Biden’s lead in South Carolina has diminished because his support has fallen from a high of 46 percent in May. Few political observers expected Biden to win South Carolina by the 20-point leads he held over the summer when the Democratic field boasted two dozen contenders.

His drop in S.C. support comes as the race becomes more focused with the field cut by more than half and the leading contenders consistently standing out in the early-voting states.

Sanders has taken leads in Iowa and New Hampshire with Warren and Buttigieg joining Biden to round out the top four leaders. Iowa voters head to their caucus Monday. New Hampshire holds its primary on Feb. 11.

Biden keeps a lead in South Carolina’s Feb. 29 primary thanks to black voters who account for close to two-thirds of Democratic ballots cast. 

Biden was once the choice of half the state's African-American Democratic primary voters, and that has now shrunk to less than a third. I'm going to guess that back-to-back Bernie wins in Iowa and New Hampshire (a week from now) will help close that 5% gap between himself and Biden. And if Bernie wins in Nevada on February 22, you'll see Biden's support in the Palmetto State disintegrate entirely. Want to help Bernie drive home his message in South Carolina? That's why I included the DWT Bernie thermometer on the right.