Ileana vs Beyoncé-- Is Debbie Wasserman Schultz The Dark Presence Behind The Curtain?

The Florida Republican Party moved to shore up Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's shaky House seat by giving some strongly Democratic areas-- like Key West-- to much disliked David Rivera in FL-26. Rivera, plagued with a tough district and an unending series of corruption scandals, was promptly defeated for reelection. Ileana survived in a district (FL-27) that has more of Miami's Cuban neighborhoods, including Little Havana, without many African-American neighborhoods, just over her district line. In November, Obama won FL-26 and FL-27 with identical percentages against Romney, 53.1-46.4%. The increase in Ros-Lehtinen's district from 2008 was the biggest increase for Obama in any Republican-held district in America. Obama went from 48.6 in 2008 to 53.1 last year, a number that would stop any Republican in their tracks when contemplating 2014.

But Ileana Ros-Lehtinen isn't "any Republican." She is very close with Florida Democratic political boss and DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. who has publicly knee-capped Democrats in the past for daring to oppose her pal Ileana. Is it happening again? You bet it is. FL-27 is the only one of the 5 most Democratic-leaning Republican-held districts that Wasserman Schultz-ally Steve Israel has already taken off the table. Gary Miller (CA-31, David Valadao (CA-21, and Jon Runyan (NJ-03), for example, have almost an identical political profile to FL-27 and all are top priority targets, while Ileana... Ileana who? Oh that Ileana. Can you talk with that about Debbie?

Only two districts in the whole country voted for McCain in 2008 and switched to Obama in 2012, NY-11 (Michael Grimm) and FL-27. Grimm, as he should be, is a MAJOR target of the DCCC's this year. FL-27... talk with Debbie. The last Democrat to seriously challenge Ileana was Annette Taddeo in 2008. Wasserman Schultz taught her a lesson she'll never forget. Nor, apparently, will many other Florida Democrats. Here's one of the most vulnerable seats in America-- certainly the most vulnerable seat in Florida, and no one seems interested in running.

Last year, the DCCC ignored FL-27 entirely. The Democrats ran a "mystery meat candidate," Manny Yevancey, who picked up 37% of the vote to Ileana's 60%. He didn't run a campaign and was just a nomination place-holder to make sure no one who would run a campaign would have the chance to do so. Ros Lehtinen raised $2,146,246 and spent $1,190,873 on the race. Yevancey filed no FEC reports, which means he raised less than $5,000-- maybe less than $5. Many suspect he was nothing more than a Debbie Wasserman Schultz brainstorm.

I wonder if Wasserman Schultz will figure out how to get her crazy little right-wing amiga out of trouble with her attack last week on savvy, wealthy African-American celebrities Beyoncé and Jay-Z. See, if Beyoncé and Jay-Z chose to, they can fight back and give Ileana-- Wasserman Schultz or no Wasserman Schultz-- a real run for her money.

Shawn Carter could have been any American visitor strolling through the streets of a Caribbean town, dressed in standard-issue tourist fare of blue T-shirt and shorts, fedora on head and fat cigar in mouth. His wife, Mrs Carter, as she likes to be addressed, did that other classic tourist thing: she slung a large and ostentatiously expensive camera around her neck.

Despite what they presumably thought was their clever tourist disguise, the Carters caused quite a splash when they came to town last week, so much so that local police had to be called out to keep the adoring crowds at bay. As the blogger of the Cuban government, Yohandry Fontana, put it: "Beyoncé takes Havana by storm."

It was partly who the visitors were: the undisputed First Couple of popular music. He a hip-hop star turned impresario and now sports agent, she about to embark on a world tour of The Mrs Carter Show.

The kerfuffle was also a product of the destination Beyoncé and Jay-Z selected for a short break to celebrate their fifth wedding anniversary. Havana is not quite as accustomed to dealing with mega-celebrity as, say, Beverly Hills or Monte Carlo.

It also happens to still be subject to a trade embargo imposed by the US government that has lasted substantially longer than the Bey-Jay marriage. Ten times as long in fact, being now in its 53nd year.

The embargo technically prohibits all US tourism to the island, which is inconvenient for Beyoncé and Jay-Z because as a result of the unexpected attention their visit attracted, the inevitable inquisition has followed. Two Republican representatives for south Florida, whose constituents include many enduringly embittered Cuban exiles, have raised the issue of the Carters' visit with the Obama administration, denouncing it as having provided sustenance to the "murderous" Castro regime.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart have sent a joint letter to the Treasury Department official responsible for policing the embargo to demand to be told who approved the Carters' travel and for what purpose. The letter points out that "tourist activities" are covered by the ban and complains that the trip was used by the Castro regime for propaganda purposes.

"The restrictions on tourism travel are common-sense measures meant to prevent US dollars from supporting a murderous regime that opposes US security interests at every turn and which ruthlessly suppresses the most basic liberties of speech, assembly and belief," the politicians write.

To add to the heat, the anti-Castro lobby group Cuba Democracy Advocates, based in Washington, accused the couple of being "extremely insensitive." "There are women getting beaten on a daily basis, people are fighting for their freedom," the group's director Mauricio Claver-Carone told celebrity news website TMZ.

The congressmembers' letter doesn't say it overtly, but there is an implicit accusatory tone to their complaint that suggests complicity between the Carters and the Obama administration. The music stars are close to Barack and Michelle Obama-- Jay-Z was an opening act for the president at several of his campaign election last year, and Beyoncé famously lip-synched the national anthem at his second inauguration.

Obama has also loosened in recent years the noose tied around Cuba's neck under the trade embargo. Under the revised terms, Americans can visit the island, though trips are still restricted to academic, religious or cultural exchanges in which participants must have a "full-time schedule of educational exchange activities that will result in meaningful interaction between the travelers and individuals in Cuba."

By that standard, how does the Carter visit hold up? There was certainly a cultural aspect to it. There was that cigar, for starters, and the typical Cuban creole food-- fish, chicken, black beans and rice-- they ate at the renowned paladar, La Guarida. You don't get that quality of island cooking every day in Brooklyn, the couple's more familiar stomping ground.

You could also put into the "cultural" category the stroll through Old Havana, and the time the couple spent on Thursday night at El Gato Tuerto, a legendary Havana nightclub, followed by the Casa de la Musica where according to Reuters they danced to salsa until dawn.

As for spending one-on-one time with Cuban individuals, that is not so clear. The blogger Fontana said that Beyoncé had been booked to have lunch with "important figures of Cuban culture," but the only certain interaction was with her mother, Tina, and Jay-Z's mother, Gloria Carter, who tagged along for the ride.

All in all, bearing in mind the Rottweiler-like tenacity of the Cuban exile community, this wrangle has the potential to run for some time.

Over 50,000 American tourists visit Cuba "illegally" every year. But Ileana and the more clownish of the Diaz-Balart sons feel that because these two are African-American celebrities, associated with Obama, there's some hay to be made in singling them out. If only the DCCC had a candidate running who Beyoncé, Jay-Z, their friends and fans could contribute to...



UPDATE: Ties That Bind-- Debbie And Ileana, The Sugar Queens

The Fanjul brothers aren't especially partisan in their political giving. They just want whores from whichever party and although they've always found a more natural affinity inside the GOP, they've funded Debbie Wasserman Schultz's rise to the top of the Democratic Party, where they hope to see her Speaker one day soon. You're probably not aware-- and to be honest, I doubt Zionist Debbie is either but Don Black is the founder and owner of Stormfront, the leading neo-Nazi website in America, with over 10 million posts. Right-wing fanatics are allowed to get married, of course, and Don's wife, Chloe Black, works for Jose ("Pepe") Fanjul, of the Fanjul sugar empire. According to the spring newsletter of the Southern Poverty Law Center, when the Palm Beach Post reported this, Chloe said "I am not involved in the Web site and do not agree with extremist or racially prejudiced views." And I know for certain that Debbie doesn't either. I'm less certain about some of the Republicans whose seats she protects more tenaciously than Democratic seats.

Two Charts That Help Explain Why Pelosi's Hopelessly Inept DCCC Isn't Capable Of Winning Back Congress

Just above we have the election results for two blue Miami-Dade congressional districts, FL-26 and FL-27. The Republican House incumbents, respectively Carlos Curbelo, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, won both.

In 2012, Obama won Miami-Dade 540,776 (62%) to 332,602 (38%). This year, Hillary did even better than Obama did-- 623,006 (63.7%) to 333,666 (34.1%). Even the hapless Patrick Murphy-- the worst possible Senate candidate the DSCC could find-- won in Miami-Dade (Rubio's home base) 528,555 (54.6%) to 419,623 (43.3%).

Obama beat Romney in FL-26 53-46% and beat him in FL-27 53-47%. I don't have the final numbers for the presidential campaign by congressional district but Hillary did better than Obama did in winning both FL-26 and FL-27. Although the Democrats had a fatally-flawed candidate-- corruption mired conservative Joe Garcia-- they fought hard and the DCCC and House Majority PAC wasted $6,101,294 in the district, one of their top spends of 2016. They spent nothing at all in FL-27. That may seem odd, considering it's right next door and just as blue as FL-26, perhaps bluer now.

But that's easily explained. FL-27's Republican incumbent, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, is under the protection of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She makes sure no viable opponent is ever nominated against Ros-Lehtinen and that no money is ever spent against her. Washerman Schultz has gotten away with this for a full decade, even though she was caught doing it and publicly chastised (or gentled wrist slapped anyway). This time the opponent was Scott Fuhrman, a worthless millionaire who self-funded $694,718 into the race but brought in only $7,488 in small contributions, and had nothing whatsoever to offer working families. But he still managed to do substantially better than the Blue Dog/New Dem-endorsed Garcia who the DCCC spent all those millions of dollars on. Fuhrman got 129,548 votes (45.1%) and Garcia got 115,348 votes (41.2%). That can of thing only makes sense in DCCC-world. The DCCC will do the same thing next cycle as well, throwing away two prime pick-ups because no one wants to get in a mud-wrestling match with a disgusting, vicious animal like Wasserman Schultz.

And here's another chart, this one showing the two sprawling congressional districts in northern Wisconsin, WI-07 and WI-08. Trump surrogate and former reality TV actor Sean Duffy represents WI-07 to the west and Reid Ribble retired, leaving an open seat in WI-08 to the east. Obama won both districts against McCain (with 53% in WI-07 and with 54% in WI-08) and then lost both districts against Romney, 51% to 48%. The DCCC decided to go for what looked like the easier district, WI-08, which had no incumbent. So they threw $551,076 for garden variety moderate Democrat Tom Nelson. They gave exactly zero to progressive Berniecrat Mary Hoeft, by every standard (except the DCCC's), the far better candidate. A half million dollars for Nelson bought him 135,648 votes (37.3%). Mary would probably have won with any reasonable amount of support. She managed to raise $105,417 from the grassroots-- to Duffy's $2,155,137. (She received a modest boost from the Working Families Party, which spent $128,528 against Duffy independently.) She got more raw votes than Nelson and a greater percentage of the vote to boot-- with zero investment from the DCCC or House Majority PAC. Her total was 137,910 (38.2%).

Clearly, something is wrong with the way the dummy-conservaDems who run the DCCC-- Ben Ray Lujan, Steve Israel, Cheri Bustos and Kelli Ward-- are recruiting candidates and funding campaigns. And that didn't start in 2015. It goes back to the way Rahm Emanuel shaped the DCCC to be a vehicle for the Republican-wing of the Democratic Party. And the Democrats have lost not dozens of seats, but scores of seats, under the Pelosi chairmen and their miserable and corrupt, failed, unaccountable staff.

Instead of trying to figure out what went wrong, they just deny anything went wrong, pat each other on the back, find someone or something else to blame and declare it could have been worse if not for their own brilliance. If they don't even recognize that going from 257 seats in 2008 to 193 seats in 2010 and to 188 in 2014 (a loss of 69 seats) is a disaster, how will they ever deal with the core philosophy, strategy and tactics that have the House Dems sink lower and lower?

2018 could be a banner year for House Democrats-- but not with this turgid DCCC that is incapable of winning. Remember, in 2010, 65,237,840 Americans voted for Democratic House candidates (and 52,249,491 voted for Republicans). This year just 35,624,357 Americans bought the DCCC's non-message, while 40,081,282 Americans voted for Republican candidates. The Democrats had a net gain of six seats this year where they needed 30 and the bar for success was a minimum of 15-20. But even where the Democrats had 4 of their most important successes in building a worthwhile team for the future-- WA-07 (Pramila Jayapal), CA-44 (Nanette Barragan), MD-08 (Jamie Raskin) and NH01 (Carol Shea-Porter), the DCCC had no involvement whatsoever and spent zero dollars. If you would like to help Blue America congressional recruiting efforts for 2018, this is the place.

Even In The Localest Of Races, It's All About Trumpanzee

There are 3 South Florida districts held by Republicans that are heavily Latino:

• FL-25- Mario Diaz-Balart (70.4% Latino)
• FL-26- Carlos Curbelo (69.5% Latino)
• FL-27- Ileana Ros-Lehtien 72.7% Latino)

Trump fared poorly in all three- losing with 38.9% in FL-27 and with 40.5% in FL-26 while narrowly winning in FL-25 with 49.7%. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has prevented Democrats from contesting the seats held by her old pals Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart. Ros-Lehtinen (whose district now has a PVI of D+5 and is the second bluest district in the country held by a Republican) is retiring. FL-26 is the absolute bluest district-- PVI is D+6-- held by a Republican and Curbelo is running scared and can sometimes be a former vote for progressive legislation in Congress than Blue Dogs like Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Henry Cuellar (TX), Collin Peterson (MN) and fellow Floridian Stephanie Murphy.

People say it would be hard even for the least competent, most badly run DCCC in recent history to lose these 3 seats this cycle. But that's exactly the kind of challenge the DCCC is best at-- losing sure things. They are entirely ignoring Mary Barzee Flores' race against Diaz-Balart. A former judge, she's too progressive for the DCCC. With no help from the DCCC, she's already raised $728,231 up against Diaz-Balart's $1,118,990. She makes sense as a candidate, being a Latina in a heavily Hispanic district. The DCCC doesn't seem to get that when they don't want to. The DCCC candidate in FL-26 is Debbie Mucarel-Powell, an Ecuadorian immigrant running against Curbelo and the 3 top Democratic candidates running in the open FL-27 seat are non-Hisapnic. The GOP will run either Bruno Barreiro or Maria Elvira Salazar. The DCCC hasn't weighed in but the likeliest Democratic candidates are David Richardson, Donna Shalala and Matt Haggman. No Hispanic-- although number 4, is Kristen Rosen Gonzalez, who had a Latino husband and is using his name for politics. Shalala seems to be way ahead of the pack for the August 28 primary. Her ethnic heritage is Lebanese. Can she win in a heavily Latino district? I didn't think so, but I may be wrong there.

The Miami Herald reported that on Tuesday Eileen Higgins-- not a Latina-- won a seat on the Miami-Dade County Commission, "defeating the better-funded campaign of the former commissioner's wife to scramble the conventional wisdom of who can get elected in a heavily Hispanic district in Miami."

Higgins, a Spanish-speaking Ohio native who adopted the campaign moniker "La Gringa," won by six points over Zoraida Barreiro, the Cuban-born wife of Bruno Barreiro, who resigned to run in a Republican congressional primary [FL-27]. With all 60 precincts reporting, Higgins had 53 percent of the vote, and Barreiro 47 percent.

...With the Democratic Party deploying money, office holders, candidates and volunteers to boost Higgins early on in the special election, an officially nonpartisan contest became a proxy battle with Republicans.


 The GOP used U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican from Miami, in robo-calls and mailers. Her husband's Republican congressional campaign also became her top donor, with at least $95,000 in contributions.

District 5 straddles parts of Miami and Miami Beach, with a heavy concentration of active voters in Little Havana and other enclaves where older Cuban-American voters are considered vital to win in low-turnout elections.


Turnout was nearly 15 percent, meaning voter interest increased after the four-person primary on May 22, when about 13 percent of the district's voters participated. For the runoff between Barreiro and Higgins, 14,023 ballots were cast, according to results posted after 9 p.m. Higgins took 7,449 and Barreiro 6,494. 
...Democrats outnumber Republicans in the district, and Hillary Clinton carried District 5 by double digits in 2016. But Republicans tend to turn out in low-profile, local elections.

Bruno Barreiro, the only Miami-Dade commissioner to openly support Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign, held the seat for 20 years. He vacated it in March to run in the GOP primary to replace retiring Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican, in Florida's District 27.


...Though running for what would be her first political office, Barreiro enjoyed financial support from Miami-Dade's circuit of lobbyists, developers and vendors who dominate fundraising for incumbents. Tuesday represented the second loss for Barreiro in as many years, after she failed to win a Miami commission seat in 2017.

Higgins drew the underdog title throughout the 10-week sprint to replace Bruno Barreiro. In the May 22 primary, she faced two well-known names in the district: Zoraida Barreiro, along with Alex Diaz de la Portilla, a former state senator who used to represent the area in Tallahassee. Higgins pulled off her first upset when she took a narrow first in that contest with 35 percent of the vote to Barreiro's 33 percent. As the top two finishers, they advanced to the June 19 runoff.

Conventional wisdom had Barreiro the favorite, since she was expected to pick up most of Diaz de la Portilla's voters, a fellow Republican Cuban American. But Diaz de la Portilla didn't endorse in the race, and the Higgins ground game appeared to narrow the traditional advantage Republicans enjoy in mail-in balloting, which accounted for six out of every 10 votes cast in the District 5 runoff. While Republicans led Democrats by three points in mail-in ballots and early voting last week, the margin shrank to just a single point by Sunday.

"This is a transformational election," said Fernand Amandi, a Democratic pollster who supported Higgins. "This is an election where you had an unknown defeat two of the titular Cuban dynasties in local politics. and it wasn't even close."


...She also sided with the liberal wing of the commission on a string of issues, including mandatory workforce housing requirements for new developments, ending the acceptance of detention requests from federal immigration authorities, and opposing the extension of the 836 expressway southwest into Kendall.

The District 5 results are a blow for Bruno Barreiro, who transferred $95,000 from his congressional campaign to his wife's election effort. That made him his wife's top donor.

By her own admission, Barrerio is not a strong public speaker. She turned in a halting performance during the single televised debate with Higgins. Her online campaigning was minimal. While Higgins posted multiple daily updates from the campaign trail on her Twitter account, @eyesonmyworld, the @ZBarreiroFL feed hasn't been updated since last August.

In remarks at her Election Night event, Barreiro linked the loss in part to her husband's congressional campaign, saying Democrats targeted her to derail him.

And by the way, there may have been some voters who were offended by the Barreiros playing fast and loose with Florida election law. You cannot move more than $1,000 freely from a federal campaign-- his-- to a state campaign-- hers-- even if both campaigns are for the same candidate, let alone for another candidate, even if it is a spouse. That may come back to but Mr. Barreiro in the ass in November.

 




Steve Israel's Greatest Accomplishment Of 2014: The 2 Bluest Districts Without Democratic Candidates, Both In Florida

¿dónde está Steve?

We've made the case that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has, over the last decade, moved-- at times openly and at times stealthily-- to offer political protection to her old comrade, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Back in 2008, when Wasserman Schultz was in charge of the DCCC's Red-to-Blue program and publicly endorsing Ros-Lehtinen (and two other Miami-Dade Republicans) against Democrats, Ileana's 18th CD had a PVI of R+4. Since they, Florida has undergone some significant changes demographically (which we'll get to in a moment) and also in terms of cartology. FL-18 was redrawn into FL-27, a district evenly divided, registration-wise, between Democrats and Republicans. The last reported PVI was R+2 but by now the district is either even or D+1. In 2008 Obama lost the district (the current boundary lines) to McCain 123,543 (51%) but in 2012 won it against Romney 130,020 (53%) to 114,096 (47%).

The district is 74% Hispanic but the Cuban dominance isn't what it once was. Venezuelans, Colombians, Nicaraguans, Hondurans and Peruvians haven;'t tended to vote Republican-- and younger Cubans don't either. Little Havana itself, once the heartland of the Cuban exile community and the political base for right-wing refugees isn't nearly as Cuban-- nor nearly as Republican-- as it once was.

A vaguely competent DCCC Chairman would have told Wasserman Schultz to pipe down and targeted FL-27 as one of the easiest Red-to-Blue switches in America. Instead, Steve Israel has allowed Wasserman Schultz to recruit a ghost candidate in 2012 (Manny Yevancey, virtually all of whose ballot signatures came from the Tampa Bay area) and to frighten off all Democrats this year. FL-27 is the second bluest district in the country without a Democratic challenger. The bluest, also in Florida (FL-13), has no Democrat because Israel chased the head of the local NAACP out of the race on behalf of a Republican party switcher who was immediately caught lying about his résumé and withdrew, although not until Israel had managed to completely alienate African-Americans and progressives. And, no, Nancy Pelosi didn't fire him-- not for the screw up in FL-13 or the even worse screw up in FL-27. Who needs two seats in Florida anyway?

Between Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, South Americans and Central Americans, Cubans no longer call the shots for Spanish-speaking Floridians. At the time when Wasserman Schultz was openly calling for the reelections of Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and, most strenuously, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, she was a major funnel for both right-wing Cuban political money and corrupt sugar baron into the Democratic Party. From the August 15, 2007 Hill:

When Democrats gained control of Congress, hopes were high that Cuba travel and trade restrictions would be eased by a party historically opposed to a so-called hard line on Cuba.

So far, however, the Democratic-led House has been tougher on Cuba than when Republicans controlled the lower chamber.

Sixty-six House Democrats-- including 20 members of the freshman class-- recently voted against a farm bill amendment offered by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) that would have made it easier for U.S. farmers to sell agricultural goods to Cuba.

...Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) was instrumental in winning Democratic votes against the Rangel amendment. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) told the Miami Herald that Wasserman Schultz was “a tiger” on the Rangel vote, while Antonio Zamora of the U.S.-Cuba Legal Forum described her as a key party in building Democratic opposition.

“I was about as active as you could be,” said Wasserman Schultz, a second-termer who serves as a deputy chief whip for Democrats. At the same time, she said other members such as Reps. Albio Sires (D-N.J.) and Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) also worked hard to whip opposition.

...Wasserman Schultz’s position on Cuba puts her at odds with some Democratic leaders, but she said she has no worries that this might affect her if she seeks a higher leadership position in the future.

In 2007, two state House seats inside Ros-Lehtinen's congressional district flipped from Republican to Democrat and Democratic Senator Bill Nelson ran up significant majorities there in 2006 and 2012. This has been swept under the carpet by Wasserman Schultz and Israel. This week, Pew released another report verifying what the DCCC should have been working on all decade-- that Cubans are shifting towards the Democratic Party. Steve Israel is a monkey that will not see, will not speak, will not hear. So when the DCCC asks you for money, tell them it would be more usefully spent feeding monkeys at the zoo.

Cubans in the U.S. have long identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party, even as Hispanics overall have tilted Democrat. But the party affiliation of Cubans has undergone a shift over the past decade, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of survey data.

Less than half (47%) of Cuban registered voters nationwide now say they identify with or lean toward the Republican Party-- down from the 64% who said the same about the GOP a decade ago, according to 2013 survey data. Meanwhile, the share of Cubans who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party has doubled from 22% to 44% over the same time period, according to the survey of Hispanics.

The Cuban population in the U.S. is centered in Florida, home to seven-in-ten of the nation’s 2 million Cuban-origin Hispanics. In the 1960s, the state’s Cuban immigrant population boomed as many left the island after Fidel Castro’s rise to power. The concentration of Cuban voters subsequently helped push the overall Hispanic vote toward the Republican Party in the Sunshine State. In 2004, for example, Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush won 78% of the Cuban vote in Florida, compared with 56% of the state’s Hispanics overall.

The shift is partly explained by the coming of age of U.S.-born Cubans, who have somewhat different political affiliations than their elders. Today, 44% of Cubans in the U.S. are native-born. Some 48% of Cubans ages 18 to 49 were born in the U.S., compared with 11% of Cubans who are 50 years and older.

…Looking at all Cubans, including those not registered to vote, only a third say they identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, according to the 2013 survey of Hispanics. On the other side of the aisle, some 48% of Cubans today say they identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.

The impact of younger Cubans is reflected in those figures. Over half (56%) of Cubans ages 18 to 49 identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party compared with 39% of those 50 years and older. Conversely, older Cubans tend to identify with or lean toward the Republican Party more than younger Cubans, by 44% to 23%. Even so, the share of older Cubans who are Republican has declined over time. In 2002, among all Cubans, some 68% who were 50 and older said they identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party.

Israel would rather waste donor money going after impossible red districts with his ridiculous Blue Dog candidates, districts he will lose… every single one of them. But what does he care? It's not his money.

Stopping Trump By Winning Back The House In 2018-- One Of The Possible Paths

How many suburban congressman besides Issa will live to regret backing Trump?

I have a part-time job-- congressional recruiting. It's voluntary and it's GRUELING. In between the time I wrote "congressional" and "recruiting" in the last sentence, I had a 30 minute conversation with a top recruit for a swing district. He's run before. He hates the DCCC. Everyone I talk to hates the DCCC. The DCCC screwed him over. He's already a pretty high-ranking state-level elected official and who didn't enjoy being consistently lied to and rat-fucked by Steve Israel and Kelly Ward and treated like a novice by the unaccomplished moron-children they assigned to deal with candidates. He has a family and a life and to go through another experience with the DCCC wouldn't be worth another run for Congress. Almost everyone who has ever experienced the DCCC feels the same way. I hear it all day long-- every day and from every part of the country. Madonna should forget about blowing up and the White House and imagine blowing up the DCCC instead. Unless today is the first day you're reading DWT, you know I'm the last person to be an effective defender of the DCCC. In fact, no one detests them more than I do.

That said, Israel and Kelly Ward are gone. That's a big deal-- but not nirvana. According to people I trust, this new executive director is supposed to be pretty good. We'll see. Rotgut Blue Dog (and Rahm Emanuel protégée) Cheri Bustos had a dominant voice on the recruiting committee last cycle and many people blame her-- and rightfully so-- for how horribly the Democrats did. This year, I'm hearing that people let her yammer on and try to ignore her determined stupidity and let others on the recruitment committee take the lead. That's also a big deal.

This week I was turned down by two superb prospective candidates who refuse to do anything with the DCCC until they've proven themselves to be free of the poison Steve Israel wrecked the place with. But I found another one who's more open to running. He'd be great and the Republican who represents the blue-leaning district could be a real victim of the toxic combination of Trump and Ryan.

But what I want us to look at today are the red-held seats where Hillary out-performed Obama (or even did about as well as Obama) and where the DCCC has been ineffective-- or nonexistent. A good example would be FL-27 (Miami), where Debbie Wasserman Schultz has worked for a decade to protect her corrupt Republican crony Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. In 2012 Obama beat Romney in FL-27 53.0% to 46.3%, a pretty strong performance. But Wasserman Schultz and Ros-Lehtinen worked together to make sure there would be no plausible Democratic opponent-- and Ros-Lehtinen coasted to reelection. This past cycle, Hillary did even better, beating Trump in the district 58.6% to 38.9%. Again, Ros-Lehtinen had a joke to run against instead of a real candidate. But even running against a nothing candidate with no DCCCC suppory-- and who spent just $869,383 to Ros-Lehtinen's $3,328,739-- she only managed to win with 54.9%. Against a credible, well-supported candidate... we could see Ros-Lehtinen go work for her old amigo Lincoln Diaz-Balart's campaign for President of Cuba.

These are the districts that need to be seriously looked at for 2018 targeting:

• AZ-02, Martha McSally's district, which Hillary won-- 49.6% to 44.7%, beating Obama's 2012 performance (48.4% to 49.9%) The Democrats had a weak candidate-- a New Dem-- who the DCCC didn't support and who raised just $1,571,901 to McSally's $8,261,616. McSally out-performed Trump massively. She won with 56.7% (compared to Trump's 44.7% loss).

The only other seat in Arizona worth looking at is David Schweikert's Scottsdale/ParadiseValley district-- although that would be a real long-shot and could only be won as part of a massive anti-Trump/anti-Ryan tsunami. Hillary lost 52.4- 42.4% but she did a lot better than Obama's 38.8% total in 2012. Schweikert hasn't had a viable opponent. Moving along to California, there are excellent opportunities for Democratic pickups. Trump and Republican polices are widely hated and 2018 should be golden for Democrats in the Golden State.

• CA-10, Jeff Denham's Central Valley (Modesto, Manteca, Tracy) seat is a minority white district. Hillary did slightly worse than Obama there but still beat Trump 48.5-45.5%. Obama had beaten Romney 50.6-47.0%. The DCCC backed Michael Eggman. Denham spent $4,174,467 to Engman's $1,551,905. The DCCC & Pelosi's House Majority PAC put in just over $3.8 million to Ryan's Congressional Leadership Fund's $3.3 million. Denham beat Eggman by around 10,000 votes-- 52.4% to 47.6%. It was a better performance than Engman's 44% in 2014 but the DCCC is talking about running his sister, Susan, an Assemblywoman, in 2018 instead.

• CA-21, David Valadao's Central Valley district is south of Denham's and is over 72% Latino. (Chew that over in your mind.) Obama beat Romney 54.6% to 43.5% and Hillary did even better-- besting Trump 55.2% to 39.7%. Emilio Huerta, Dolores Huerta's son ran, but got off to a bumpy start without much DCCC help when it was needed. Valadao beat him by around 11,000 votes (58-42%) in one of the lowest turn districts in California. And Valadao spent $2,765,981 to Emilio's $630,389.

• CA-25, Buck McKeon's old district in northeastern L.A. County (Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley) and Ventura (Simi Valley), is now represented by out-of-his-depth teabagger Steve Knight, a bad fit for a blue district. Romney beat Obama there 49.7-47.8% but Hillary beat Trump 50.3-43.6%. The DCCC recruited an especially unelectable piece of crap candidate from outside the district and wrecked any chance for the Democrats to win. Knight was reelected by almost 50,000 votes-- 50-40%, a landslide in a blue district. Thanks DCCC. It's a perfect example about why local Democrats hate them so much. (And Bustos tried to re-recruit him for 2018, something that went over badly on every level.)

• CA-39, Ed Royce's 32% white northern Orange County district is an odd place for a racist asshole like Royce... but the DCCC never backs Democrats against him. This year Hillary kicked ass there. Where Romney beat Obama 50.8- 47.1%, she beat Trump 51.5% to 42.9%. The DCCC refused to get behind Brett Murdock who was outspent $3,536,482 to $76,014 but still managed to take 42.3% of the vote against Royce, whose days are clearly numbered.

• CA-45, Mimi Walters central Orange County (Irvine) district is another one the DCCC reflexively ignored. Hillary outperformed Obama (who lost to Romney with 43.0%) and beat Trump 49.8-44.4%. Walters was comfortably reelected by 50,000 votes (59-41%), the DCCC completely ignoring Ron Varasteh, her opponent, who was outspent $1,643,696 to $42,761.

• CA-48, Dana Rohrabacher's Huntington Beach/Costa Mesa district, wasn't Trump territory either. Romney beat Obama there, 54.7-43.0%. Hillary took the district 47.9% to 46.2%. Again, the Democratic candidate, Sue Savary, was ignored by the DCCC and drastically outspent-- $609,952 by Rohrabacher to her $91,293. He beat her 58.5- 41.5%.

• CA-49, Darrell Issa's seat in northern San Diego/southern Orange County, was one of the tightest in the country. Doug Applegate nearly beat him-- just 6,000 votes separating them (51-49%), despite Issa outspending him $6,169,077 to $1,633,251. The DCCC jumped into the race way too late but did spend around $3.5 million eventually. Romney had beaten Obama there 52.4% to 45.7% but Hillary trounced Trump 50.7-43.2% in the highly educated middle class, mostly suburban district. Good news: Applegate is running again. (You can contribute to his campaign here.)

• CO-06 is a suburban Denver district Democrats should win. Obama beat Romney 51.6% to 46.5% and, though Hillary didn't do as well, she still beat Trump 50.2% to 41.3%. The DCCC got behind a very strong candidate, Morgan Carroll, who pretty much kept up in the spending area but the NRCC and Ryan's PAC spent spent $6.3 million to the DCCC's and Pelosi's PAC's $5.0 million. Coffman won 51.3% to 42.4%.

• FL-25, FL-26, FL-27- The 3 Republican-held districts in Miami-Dade. Hillary won FL-26 (Carlos Curbelo) and FL-27 (Ros-Lehtinen) definitively and narrowly lost the redder FL-25 (Mario Diaz-Balart), out-performing Obama's 2012 scores in each. The DCCC ignored FL-25 and FL-27 and ran a ghastly campaign for a terrible, completely unelectable and notoriously corrupt candidate in FL-26. What a mess!

• GA-06 the Tom Price district in the suburbs north of Atlanta where a special election will soon determine if anti-Trump sentiment is growing or subsiding in a traditionally very red district that veered sharply towards Hillary in November. These well-off, well-educated suburbanites don't like Trump. They gave Romney a 60.8-37.5% victory over Obama. Four years later, the swing was mind boggling. without ever campaigning there or spending any money there, Hillary nearly won the district. Trump took it narrowly-- 48.3% to 46.8%. The primaries for both parties are going to be contentious but the likely Democratic candidate, Jon Ossoff, is just the kind of no-nonsense values-driven candidate who could claim this unlikely district for the Democrats.

• GA-07- Just east of Price's district is an equally red seat held by right-wing nut Bob Woodall, slightly more exurban than suburban. The swing towards Hillary was also strong though not quite as eye-popping as in GA-06. Romney beat Obama there 60.2-38.3% and Trump lost around 9 points from Romney's score to come out ahead of Hillary 51.1% to 44.8%. Woodall has won every race with over 60%-- although last November was his smallest majority (60..5%), despite-- once again-- not having a competitive opponent. The DCCC has entirely ignored both GA-07 and GA-06. Woodall raised $648,604 and his opponent, Rashid Malik didn't raise the $5,000 required for an FEC report.

• IL-06 is Pete Roskam's Chicagoland district (parts of DuPage, Henry, Lake, Cook and Kane counties). It's the only Republican-held district in Illinois where Hillary had a substantially better performance than Obama. He lost the district to Romney 53.3-45.1%. Hillary beat Trump there-- 50.2% to 43.2%. The DCCC has consistently allowed Roskam to slide into reelection without a fight. He hasn't had a fight since his first election in 2006 and generally wins with over 60%. This year he beat Amanda Howland, who got zero support from the DCCC, 59.5% to 40.5%. Roskam spent $3,331,980 on the race to her $98,179.

• KS-03 is the Kansas part of Kansas City (most of the city is in Missouri) and the district includes all of Johnson and Wyandotte counties and part of rural Miami County. The DCCC actually sensed something about the district, which is represented by weak backbencher Kevin Yoder. Hillary won the district, 47.2% to 46.0%. Romney had beaten Obama there 53.8-44.3%. The Democratic candidate against Yoder, Jay Sidie spent $563,363 to Yoder's $4,049,363. The DCCC threw in an additional $1,404,577, while Ryan's Congressional Leadership Fund spent $795,373. But Sidie wasn't a strong enough candidate and Yoder won by around 36,000 votes-- 51.3% to 40.6%. (A Libertarian took 8% of the vote.)

• MI-11 is the Dave Trott district in the Oakland and Wayne county suburbs west and northwest of Detroit. While the DCCC was working hard and wasting money on horrible, unelectable Blue Dog garbage candidates in other parts of the state, they refused to work with progressive doctor Anil Kumar-- Steve Israel is a vicious Islamophobe and he blackballed Kumar-- who did better than any of their sad-sack Blue Dogs. Hillary did terribly in the Republican-held districts in Michigan but less terrible in MI-11. Romney had beaten Obama there 52.3- 46.9% but neither Trump nor Hillary did as well, Trump scraping by with a 49.7-45.3% win. Kumar, who managed to raise enough money to start competitive with Trott, spent $1,109,010 to Trott's $1,337,399. The DCCC and Pelosi's PAC wasted $2.3 million of pathetic Blue Dog and NRA proponent Lon Johnson and lost in MI-01 but would have taken MI-11 if they spent that money on Kumar instead. Trott won with just 52.9%. Hopefully the DCCC will remember in 2018.

• MN-03, Erik Paulson's seat, was the only Republican-held district in Minnesota where Clinton out-performed Obama. Obama beat Romney there 49.6% to 48.8% and Hillary beat Trump 50.8% to 41.4%. Again, the well educated suburbanites west and south of Minneapolis (Edna, Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka) couldn't stomach voting for Trump-- but stuck with Paulsen in light of a weak Democratic opponent Terri Bonoff, who lost by around 50,000 votes, 56.9% to 43.1% despite nearly $4 million in independent expenditures from the DCCC.

• NE-02, the Omaha district with the single worst Blue Dog in Congress, "ex"-Republican Brad Ashford, who was defeated in November by Republican Don Bacon. Romney had beaten Obama there, 52.9-45.7% and Hillary did a little better than Obama and Trump did worse than Romney. The final tally there was a Trump win of 48.2% to 46.0%. The Blue Dog incumbent lost by almost 6,000 votes (49.4% to 47.3%) even though he outspent the Republican $2,515,416 to $1,454,019 and even though the DCCC and Pelosi's PAC wasted around $3.4 million, proving once again that if voters want a Republican, they vote for an actual Republican, not a Republican-lite Blue Dog.

• NJ-07 is Leonard Lance's suburban district in northern New Jersey that includes, primarily, chunks of Somerset, Union and Hunterdon counties. While Hillary underperformed Obama in the Republican-held New Jersey blue collar districts (NJ-02, NJ-03, NJ-04), she out-performed Obama in the better-off more suburban districts (NJ-07 and NJ-11). In 2012 Romney won NJ-07 52.5-46.3% but in November Hillary beat Trump 48.6-47.5%, again Trump underperforming Romney much more drastically than Hillary out-peforming Obama. The Democrats didn't run a candidate against Lance though, choosing to giving him a free ride to reelection again. He beat under-financed Berniecrat Peter Jacob by nearly 40,000 votes, 54.2% to 43.0%, after outspending him $1,276,330 to $305,073, while the DCCC looked on without batting an eye.

• NJ-11 was a similar situation. Rodney Frelinghuysen III or IV, treats the district (parts of Morris, Essex, Passaic and Sussex counties) as an hereditary familiar barony. He raised $1,991,920 while his Democratic opponent, Joe Wenzel, raised less than the $5,000 that would have triggered an FEC report. He won 58.2-38.7%, while Hillary out-performed Obama and virtually tied Trump. Romney had beaten Obama 52.4-46.6% in 2012. In November, Hillary had improved on Obama's performance slightly (to 47.9%) while Trump underperformed Romney significantly (48.8%).

• PA-06, PA-07 and PA-08 are the three blue-leaning suburban swing districts that surround Philly on 3 sides. The Democrats should have won all 3 but the DCCC botched up all three races and they are, once again, Republican-held. While Hillary was under-performing Obama in most Pennsylvania red districts, she held her own in these three, spending enormous energy and lots of money in the area. In 2012 Romney beat Obama in PA-06 50.6-48.1% but Hillary was maintaining Obama's numbers (48/2%), Trump was untenable for many Romney voters and only wound up with 47.6%, losing the district to Hillary. Mike Parrish, the worthless conservative Democrat who ran against Ryan Costello did far worse than Hillary and Costello beat him 57.3-42.7%. In PA-07, Pat Meehan's district, Hillary beat Trump 49.3% to 47.0%, primarily because Romney voters refused to vote for Trump. But the DCCC purposeless sabotaged the progressive Democratic candidate, Mary Ellen Balchunis, and Meehan was reelected 57.3% to 42.7%. The DCCC spent all their loot in PA-08, an open seat, that Hillary actually lost (narrowly) to Trump, 448.2-48.0% (an outcome almost identical to Romney's fractional win in 2012.) Steve Santarsiero, the Democrat ic candidate outspent the Brian Fitzpatrick, the GOP candidate, $2,778,029 to $2,009,177 and the DCCC (+ Pelosi'sPAC) spent another $7 million! Fitzpatrick still beat Santartsiero by around 35,000 votes, 54.5% to 45.5%.

• SC-01, disgraced former Governor Mark Sanford's district, isn't an area where the DCCC has any expectations but it's a relatively well-educated suburban district and easily the wealthiest in the state. It's the only district in South Carolina were Hillary out-performed Obama, albeit only slightly. Romney beat Obama 58.3% to 40.2%. Many of his supporters were repulsed by Trump, who only beat Clinton 53.5% to 40.4%. Democrat Dimitri Cherny didn't offer Sanford much of a challenge, raising just $27,562 to Sanford's $741,639. Sanford beat him by about 70,000 votes, 58.6% to 36.9%. I don't see a Democrat winning a seat like this in 2018... but the DCCC should start working the district now with an eye on the future. And that brings us to Texas.

Statewide Hillary out-performed Obama 2012 3,867,816 (43.4%) to 3,294,440 (41%). Where Romney took 57% of the Texas vote, though, Trump only managed 52.6%. But the statewide totals don't tell us much about the districts where Clinton really-- and unexpectedly-- excelled. There are 36 congressional districts in the state, 11 held by Democrats and 25 held by Republicans. Of the Republican-held seats, Hillary out-performed Obama in 17 and under-performed Obama in 6. There was virtually no difference between Obama and Hillary in 2 districts. Generally speaking, the better-off, better-educated suburban districts is where Hillary did so much better than Obama and in the much poorer, more rural districts she under-performed Obama. Her most significant increases over Obama were in these districts:

• TX-02 (Ted Poe-- Houston and northern suburbs), where Trump won 52.4% to 43.1%. Romney won the district 62.9% to 35.6%
• TX-03 (Sam Johnson-- northern Dallas suburbs), where Trump won 54.8% to 40.6%. Romney won the district 59.9% to 38.6%
• TX-07 (John Culberson-- Houston and Harris County suburbs), where Hillary won 48.5% to 47.1%. Romney won the district 62.9% to 35.6%
• TX-10 (Mike McCaul-- Austin-Houston corridor), where Trump won 52.3% to 43.2%. Romney won the district 59.1% to 38.8%
• TX-21 (Lamar Smith-- Austin-San Antonio corridor), where Trump won 52.5% to 42.5%. Romney won the district 59.8% to 37.9%
• TX-22 (Pete Olson-- southern Houston suburbs), where Trump won 52.1% to 44.2%. Romney won the district 62.1% to 36.7%
• TX-23 (Will Hurd-- San Antonio exurbs and west Texas borderlands; 71% Latino), where Hillary won 49.8% to 46.4%. Romney won the district 50.7% to 48.1%
• TX-24 (Kenny Marchant-- Ft. Worth suburbs), where Trump won 50.7% to 44.5%. Romney won the district 60.4% to 38.0%
• TX-32 (Pete Sessions-- northern Dallas and suburbs), where Hillary won 48.5% to 46.6%. Romney won the district 57.0% to 41.5%

The DCCC ignored all these districts except TX-23, where they ran an ultra-conservative sleazy Blue Dog who had already been rejected by the voters, Pete Gallego. They wasted $4.7 on independent expenditures for the worthless Gallego who always voted with Republicans when he was in Congress amassing a terrible voting record and ingratiating himself with crooked lobbyists all over DC. The DCCC should be looking for progressive Democrats to challenge Hurd, John Culberson, Lamar Smith, Mike McCaul, Pete Olson and Ted Poe.

• VA-10 is Barbara Comstock's blue northern Virginia district where Hillary beat Trump 52.2% to 42.2%, outperforming Obama's 49.2% in 2012, where he lost to Romney. Once again, the DCCC picked a crap unelectable candidate, LuAnn Bennett, and wasted over $6 million dollars on her., only to see her do far worse than Clinton, losing to the entirely unaccomplished Comstock by over 20,000 votes, 52.9% to 47.1%. The Democrats need to stop recruiting and wasting money on corrupt conservative candidates. With Israel gone, there's at least a chance , a small chance, this will begin to happen.

[Two notes: there are plenty of other districts Democrats can win in 2018, districts where Hillary didn't do better than Obama did-- like against Peter King (NY), Paul Ryan (WI), but that isn't the purview of this post. And the mirror image of this post-- about Democrats in districts Trump won-- will be up mañana.] and by the way, you can contribute to the progressive candidates Blue America has endorsed for 2017 and 2018 races by tapping on the thermometer on the right.

Wednesday, Ron Brownstein covered the changing House outlook for The Atlantic and remarked on how Trump and Trumpism are sparking something of a realignment of some white non-urban blue collar areas in a redder direction, while better off, professional suburban areas are continuing to trend towards Democrats. "As the share of voters who split their tickets has steadily declined since the 1970s," he wrote, "each party’s roster of seats in the House increasingly reflects its voting coalition in presidential elections. As a new Atlantic analysis has shown, the Republican House majority now relies predominantly on districts where whites exceed their share of the national population, that are located mostly outside of urban centers, and that contain fewer white college graduates than the national average. Democrats, in turn, rely on an upstairs-downstairs coalition of districts where minorities, college-educated whites, or both exceed their share of the population-- the vast majority of them in metropolitan areas."

The sharply polarized nature of Trump’s appeal-- which has generated magnetic attraction for blue-collar and non-urban whites, broad opposition among minorities, and unusually high resistance among white-collar whites-- has the potential to deepen this sorting process, analysts in both parties agree. The vividly contrasting voting patterns of 2016, with Trump posting big gains over Romney in heavily blue-collar House districts and Clinton improving over Obama in a broad swathe of white-collar districts, may have offered a fast-forward preview of how the House may evolve in coming years. “It was like looking decades in the future, and this is what it looks like,” said GOP strategist Liam Donovan, referring to the 2016 results. “If you just push down the gas and let it rip [on the class resorting], this is what it is going to look like.”

All initial evidence suggests Trump’s presidency-- with its deeply polarizing approaches to immigration, trade, health care, climate, and foreign policy-- will widen, rather than narrow, the fissures that emerged around in his election. That means for 2018 and beyond, each party’s electoral target list may grow increasingly focused on the members caught, in effect, behind enemy lines: the last few Democrats representing heavily blue-collar districts and the larger number of Republicans in mostly white-collar suburban seats.

The House members most immediately at risk in this segmenting process are the roughly three dozen of them representing districts that voted for the other party’s presidential ticket last year. That’s still well below the level of ticket-splitting seen as recently as two decades ago: 109 districts in 1996 and 86 in 2000 supported House members from one party and presidential candidates from the other. But it represents a slight uptick from the 26 split districts in the 2012 presidential race.

...Using the DCCC figures, 18 of the 23 Clinton-district Republicans are in seats where the share of college-educated whites exceeds the national average. Eight of those 18 are in so-called “hi-hi” districts, where both the share of minorities and white college graduates exceeds the national average. Those seats are the backbone of the modern Democratic House caucus: One hundred and eight seats fit that description and Democrats now hold 87 of them.

Clinton’s success in so many Republican-held districts with high white-education levels reflects Trump’s struggle among those voters. In 2016, Republican Representatives like Barbara Comstock in northern Virginia, Patrick Meehan and Ryan Costello outside Philadelphia, Leonard Lance in affluent northwest New Jersey, Martha McSally in Tucson, and Mike Coffman outside Denver successfully distanced themselves from doubts about Trump. Democrats are confident that will grow more difficult once those members are operating in harness with Trump as part of a unified Republican government that will, if history is any guide, vote together on most key issues.

Lance, in an interview, crystallized the strategy many of these Republicans are likely to employ under Trump: stress their willingness to work across party lines, look for opportunities to display independence from the president (Lance quickly criticized Trump’s executive order restricting immigration), and emphasize the economic issues where the views of their well-educated and affluent constituents most closely align with GOP priorities. “We have to reach out to all voters … and point out where our views are consistent with the views of well-educated constituents, and that includes, for example, a tax policy,” he said. “I think it’s important to have tax policies that will further the American economy, and many of the constituents whom I serve are involved in economic activity in New York, or in New Jersey in the pharmaceutical or the medical-device and the telecommunications industries. And these are vital parts of the national economy.”

New Candidate Alert In Florida-- Ileana Finally Has A Real Opponent

Florida's 27th congressional district is a majority Hispanic district (almost 75%)-- in fact, of all the congressional districts with a GOP congressmember, the 27th is the one with the highest percentage of Hispanics anywhere in the country. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has been the Representative for decades-- since 1989-- ever since she drew her own district lines when she was a state senator. The district has changed demographically and it's no longer the red hellhole she meant it to be. In 2008, Obama won against McCain with 51% and in 2012 he beat Romney with 53%. The district stretches from just north of the Airport in Hialeah Estates and Miami Springs, and encompasses all of Little Havana, West Miami, Coral Gables, South Miami, Kendall, Palmetto Bay and Cutler Bay.

Demographically, the district gets bluer by the day and would be a natural takeover target for the Democrats except for one problemo-- well, 2 actually: Debbie WassermanSchultz and Steve Israel who have adamantly protected their conservative Republican crony Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, usually by sabotaging plausible Democratic challengers early in the process and guaranteeing that Ros-Lehtinen never has a serious election. This year, this could all change. The DCCC will never change until Pelosi and Hoyer are gone, but progressives in Miami-Dade aren't waiting. They have a Berniecrat running now, Adam Sackrin, a 27 year old native-born Miami attorney. I asked him to introduce himself to DWT readers:

A New Day Is Dawning In South Florida
-by Adam Sackrin,
Democratic candidate, FL-27

I am a two-time Obama voter, and now-- as a result of the ominous state of American political discourse-- a progressive candidate for the Democratic Party nomination in Florida’s 27th congressional district. There is a daunting road ahead, I am a political newcomer and we are admittedly late to the game; but, this election cycle is unique. If there were ever an election for a relative unknown to come from out of nowhere and deny the longest-serving Republican woman in Congress a 15th consecutive term, it is right now. Howie has discussed FL-27 at length since 2006... here are some of his relevant posts.

Voters aligned with all political parties can agree that there are countless legitimate issues facing our country that need real, smart solutions. The representative democracy upon which our nation was founded, in Article I of the United States Constitution, provides for a bicameral legislature, representative of the states and of the people, through which the issues and needs of this country are to be addressed and resolved. When that “democratic” body is no longer representative of the people, but is actually representative of the corporations and special interests contributing enormously to their campaigns instead (mostly to re-elect incumbents who favor or have favored those interests), those issues and needs cannot be addressed and resolved properly. What results is what we see far too often portrayed on TV and in mainstream media: gridlock, obstruction, defiance, and “business as usual.” Congress either acts contrary to the interests of the people it purports to represent, or Congress does nothing at all. The House bends its own rules to sneak discriminatory language into an amendment, and the Senate refuses to hold hearings on a federal appointee. Congress obstructs, or Congress takes action that would only serve to harm the American people, and progress is never made. It is a dysfunctional system where everything, for the most part, stays the same. Powerful incumbents stay in office; policies and regulations stay favorable to their wealthy campaign donors; donors make more money, enabling them to contribute even more the next election cycle; and repeat. Politics stays the same and none of the countless legitimate issues get resolved, all to the detriment of the American people. Isn’t it time for Congress to make progress?

This election is shaping up to be unique, far beyond the options we have been given for our 45th President. Yes, those candidates are big names, with bigger personalities and the biggest campaigns, but the stakes are also much higher this year: all three branches of our federal government are up for grabs. The President, head of the executive branch, will be elected in November. The High Court of our judicial branch has a cavernous, formerly-conservative seat to be filled. One-third of the Senate and every seat in the House will hold elections that could transform the dynamic of our legislative branch moving forward, possibly for the better. This election is much bigger than the President.

The “issues” the mainstream media feeds us surrounding the Presidential race are not the real issues affecting real Americans. Those issues, and that race, are distractions. There are deeper questions that must be answered, legitimate needs that are not being met, and fundamental issues with our democracy that must be addressed if we are to make progress as a nation. Those questions, needs, and issues are all going to be resolved in Congress, or they won’t. I am certain that our 45th President will be a Democrat, and I have some peace of mind knowing they will appoint a qualified, reasonable, ethical Justice to the Supreme Court, if one is not confirmed sooner. But I have no faith in our legislative branch-- “Congress”-- as currently comprised, and you should not, either.

Florida’s Congressional District 27, in my hometown of Miami-Dade County, is held by an entrenched incumbent, an “establishment” Republican, a career politician with an enormous campaign war-chest. Her campaign, as of April 2016, has nearly $2 million cash on hand, much of that from corporations and big-moneyed interests determined to keep her in power-- forever. She has been in Congress since 1988, the year I was born. Many of her campaign donors from then still support her campaign today. Most of those donors are rich people and rich corporations, and because they have been successful in keeping her in office so long, they keep getting richer. Each year elections cost more money, campaigns get bigger, and policy and influence, which we now know is for sale, gets more expensive.

To bring this full circle: yes, there are countless legitimate issues facing our country that need real, smart solutions. But until we get big money out of our politics, there will be no possibility of doing the things we need to do as a nation, of devising real, smart solutions. There will be no possibility of progress.

Why must we continue debating the existence of climate change and how humans contribute to it, instead of formulating proactive, aggressive solutions? Because the fossil fuel industry contributes enormous sums to fund re-election campaigns for incumbents. Across all of sunny South Florida, where district 27 is located, the effects of climate change are already being felt. Construction projects on Miami Beach to literally raise sidewalks and streets and hopefully alleviate the threat of rising sea levels are underway. Nearly every month becomes the hottest on record in South Florida, and yet the incumbent representative from FL-27 did not sponsor one bill concerning climate change during the 114th Congress.

If our elected officials refuse to take action on #ClimateChange, then it’s time for #CongressChange.

As an attorney, I swore an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. I provided a link to Article I earlier, but with so many obvious threats to the values and principles on which these United States were founded, it is incumbent upon us (for lack of a better word) to review once more the supreme law of the land. Supporting the Constitution means reading it, understanding why our founding fathers chose those specific values and principles as central to the formation of our great nation, and keeping a vigilant, critical eye on our American politics and governance, not merely what the mainstream media feeds us. The influence of big money on our politics is obvious and far-reaching; its effects are felt at all levels of our government. The prosperity of our nation hinges on having crucial, “little-d” democratic discussions about climate change, equality for all, women’s rights, good jobs and support for the working class, access to quality affordable healthcare, education, and a litany of other domestic and foreign policy objectives I look forward to discussing over the coming months, each vital if we are to truly flourish as people and as a country.

You may not know me very well yet, and I may not bring the most experience, but I subscribe to a certain set of progressive, democratic values-- passionately-- and I owe it to my County, my State and my Country to do everything I can to make sure democracy is restored and upheld. As a candidate who has never run for public office before, and having never accepted one dollar from a corporation or special interest to fund a campaign, I promise first and foremost to support the Constitution, to protect democracy, and to be an uncompromised voice of the people: for reason, common-sense and progress in Congress.

That is why I am running for Congress. I cannot sit and watch any longer, it must be now. I would be honored to have your support.

Adam R. Sackrin
@AdamSackrin

The primary election is August 30, and the flippable FL-27 is located immediately to the South of FL-23, where Tim Canova and his remarkable, unwavering staff are waging a crucial primary battle. Including Alan Grayson’s efforts to take Marco Rubio’s old Senate seat, there are now at least three progressive Democrat candidates running winning campaigns in winnable races in a perennial swing state that could use a collective boost. You can contribute to Adam-- as well as to Canova and Grayson-- by tapping on the thermometer below.

With No Political Price To Pay, Republicans Are More Likely To Shut Down The Government Over Immigration Measures

Right after the Republican Party decided a good electoral strategy would be to cater to the hardcore elements inside their own Fox-fed base and shut down the government, polling showed that dozens of Republicans in Congress had put themselves in jeopardy of electoral defeat for that vote. After being told that the their congressmember had voted to shut down the government, voters across the country said they were more likely to vote for the Democrat, including in these 15 key districts:

• CO-06- Coffman- 41%, Democrat- 51%
• FL-02- Southerland- 41%, Democrat- 50%
• FL-27- Ros-Lehtinen- 42%, Democrat- 53%
• KY-06- Barr- 42%, Democrat- 50%
• IL-06- Roskam- 43%, Democrat- 49%
• IL-13- Davis- 42%, Democrat- 47%
• MI-01- Benishek- 35%, Democrat- 57%
• MI-06- Upton- 36%, Democrat 56%
• MI-07- Walberg- 42%, Democrat- 51%
• NJ-05- Garrett- 45%, Democrat- 50%
• NY-22- Hanna- 40%, Democrat- 48%
• OH-15- Stivers- 40%, Democrat- 50%
• PA-08- Fitzpatrick- 42%, Democrat- 50%
• VA-05- Hurt- 40%, Democrat- 50%
• WA-08- Reichert- 40%, Democrat- 52%

Of the 15 districts, the DCCC only contested 6 (bolded below) and only won one, FL-02. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Steve Israel made sure there was no Democratic opponent running against Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and they sabotaged the campaigns of several other Democrats running against these vulnerable Republicans. These were the results on election day.

• CO-06- Coffman- 52.0%, Romanoff- 42.9%
• FL-02- Southerland- 49.6%, Graham- 50.4%
• FL-27- Ros-Lehtinen- uncontested
• KY-06- Barr- 60.0%, Jensen- 40.0%
• IL-06- Roskam- 67.2%, Mason- 32.8%
• IL-13- Davis- 58.7%, Callis- 41.3%
• MI-01- Benishek- 52.1%, Cannon- 45.3%
• MI-06- Upton- 55.8%, Clements- 40.4%
• MI-07- Walberg- 53.5%, Byrnes- 41.2%
• NJ-05- Garrett- 55.7%, Cho- 43.0%
• NY-22- Hanna- uncontested
• OH-15- Stivers- 66.1%, Wharton- 33.9%
• PA-08- Fitzpatrick- 61.9%, Strouse- 38.1%
• VA-05- Hurt- 61/0%, Gaughan- 35.8%
• WA-08- Reichert- 63.4%, Ritchie- 36.6%

How could the DCCC have done so badly-- apart from making sure there were no candidates running in FL-27 (where Obama beat Romney 53-47%) and in NY-22 (where Obama and Romney were tied 49-49%)? It starts with atrocious candidate recruitment in the races they were interested in (Callis, Cannon, Strouse being perfect examples) and then is further explained by the districts they either ignored completely (IL-06, NJ-05, OH-15, VA-05, WA-08) or the progressives that Steve Israel actively worked to sabotage (Paul Clements being the stand-out example). And then there's the matter of the inability of the Steve Israel/Kelly Ward-led DCCC to exploit the deep resentment towards Republicans for shutting down the government. These are not capable, competent, talented people. They are hopeless hacks put in position for every other reason but the right reasons. It's what worried me about the new DCCC chair, Ben Ray Luján, who has already announced he's keeping Ward in place as executive director, and has no vision or appetite for the kinds of profound changes the dysfunctional and corrupt DCCC would need to function effectively in the 2016 cycle.

And the whole shutting down the government thing is back with us. Ted Cruz is telling Republicans that the tactic worked for the GOP and that because they shut down the government, they won so many seats in November 4. Cruz and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (KKK-AL) are pushing to shut it down again over immigration reform or health care or Obama being a usurping colored person or whatever has driven them deep into the darkness of paranoia and insanity. Again, polling shows most Americans do not want a government shut down. Look at these two questions from the Quinnipiac poll:

Not even Republican voters, a majority of whom (54%) want to forceably deport over 11 million undocumented immigrants-- primarily Hispanics and Asians-- support the idea of a government shutdown. Normal Americans are adamantly opposed to even partial shutdown-- 89% of Democrats and 71% of independents. 44% of Republicans actually are buying into the Ted Cruz/KKK perspective and are eager for a shutdown. The Republican leadership says they can prevent it. Are they lying? Miscalculating? Probably one or the other but they are also well aware that the sclerotic Democratic congressional leadership will again be incapable of making them pay for their unpopular actions at the polls.