The Democratic Establishment Freak-Out

That depends on what you mean by "Democrats"

That there is a Stop Bernie movement among the Democratic Party leaders instead of a Stop Republican Oligarch Michael Bloomberg Movement tells you all you will ever need to know about the Democratic Establishment. As a cohort, they are less than worthless. Joe Biden was their anointed Jeb Bush for the 2020 election cycle. And now they are reduced to whining that Tom Steyer's money in South Carolina is obliterating a firewall among elderly rural African-American voters and putting the final nail into Biden's political coffin. Maybe they should have realized that, politically speaking, Biden has been a zombie/corpse for decades.

With Mayo Pete demonstrating the hollowness of his flimsy support outside of wine cellars, their new best hope is the free-spending-- on them-- Republican oligarch. This is the lowest the party establishment has ever sunk. Believe me, none of them were happy yesterday when they woke up to Matt Viser's Washington Post delineation of the massiveness of Bernie's win in Nevada the night before. Let's hope Bernie smashes the party establishment to smithereens on the day after the convention and breathes new life into a wearing, geriatric Democratic Party.

The next Stop Bernie attack will be that if he's on the top of the ticket, incumbents in red and purple districts could lose. The most Republican-voting assholes among Democrats in Congress, Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Ben McAdams (UT), have both said they won't vote for Bernie. Neither, however, votes for virtually anything that's important to Democratic voters. So why should anyone care if they lose their seats? It's arguable that the Democratic Party will be much better off without members in Congress like Brindisi and McAdams, especially if they can pick up actual Democrats in other GOP-held districts, like, for example, Kara Eastman in Nebraska, Mike Siegel in Texas, Jon Hoadley in Michigan,  Jennifer Christie in Indiana, Tom Winter in Montana, Chris Armitage in Washington, Liam O'Mara in California, J.D. Scholten in Iowa...

Progressives in the House tell me that Brindisi is the worst Democrat in Congress and they all actually hope he's defeated just so that they won't gave to hear him constantly whining about how anything they try to do for the American people will cause him to lose his re-election battle. One senior Democrat told me he had never hoped for a colleague to lose before, but "I'd rather see a Republican in that seat than Brindisi. He's the worst lily-livered excuse for a Democrat I've ever seen." Meanwhile McAdams openly boasted that if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination he would distance himself from them. "My ideas are different than theirs," he said. "So as long as people understand that I’m going to be independent of any candidate and really be true to my district, I think that’s most important." But he isn't true to his district-- not at all. There are 4 counties or parts of counties that make up his district (UT-04). Salt Lake County has 5 times the number of voters than the other 3 combined. Here's how they voted in the 2016 Democratic caucuses, when Bernie was up against the status quo conservative Democrat McAdams backed:

• Salt Lake- Bernie 78.8%
• Utah- 85.3%
• Sanpete- Bernie 84.9%
• Juab- Bernie 77.5%

Yeah, so... so much for this lying sack of excrement being true to his constituents or his district, unless he's talking about the Republicans in his district. His district wants change and Biden is the no-change candidate. In 2016, they voted so overwhelmingly for Bernie because Bernie was-- and still is-- the change candidate. McAdams is a liar, trying to justify being so outrageously out of step with Democrats and independents in Utah.

OK, back to that report from Mike Debonis and Michael Scherer in The Post about the establishment's newest gambit to derail the working class champion. (If you don't want to read it, just approach Joy Reid if you dare; she's got a sickening version of it on infinite replay.) Debonis and Scherer wrote that "many Democratic House and Senate candidates are approaching a dramatic shift in their campaigns, as they recalibrate to include praise of capitalism and distance themselves from the national party. Top campaign strategists from both parties view Sanders’s success as a potentially tectonic event, which could narrow the party’s already slim hopes of retaking the Senate majority and fuel GOP dreams of reclaiming the House, which it lost amid a Democratic romp in 2018."

The most obvious people to go to to bolster this talking point would be representatives of Team Hillary and-- where that differs at all-- to the Republican wing of the party, like Rahm Emanuel. They went to one of Rahm's would-be clones. "I can tell you that there are a lot of down-ballot jitters based on my conversations with my former colleagues," said Steve Israel," who led the DCCC through some of its biggest losses in contemporary party history. He was kind enough to validate some GOP propaganda for them: "Trump is going to offer the American people this choice: Do you want to continue building the economy or do you want to lurch toward socialism? And that is a real powerful argument in the Democratic districts that Trump won in 2016."

Internal polling and analytics completed last week by former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg’s campaign projected that Sanders may be the only presidential candidate to win delegates in every state and district on March 3, delivering him a lead of 350 to 400 out of 1,357 delegates set to be awarded unless race dynamics change, according to a person familiar with the data who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly.

Because of Democratic rules that give no delegates to candidates who scores less than 15 percent of the vote in a state or congressional district, Sanders could build a delegate lead far greater than his advantage in the popular vote.

If Democrats are awakening to a recognition that Sanders could pull away from the rest of the field, there is far less consensus about whether his nomination will help President Trump win reelection. Sanders’s power to turn out young and blue-collar voters or suburbanites is not fully tested, the ceiling of Trump’s support is poorly defined in a two-way race and the senator from Vermont has not yet been subjected to a negative paid advertising effort.

“Our data shows that all of our potential nominees, including Sanders, have a pathway to victory, but it isn’t guaranteed,” said Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC that has polled heavily in the key presidential swing states. “This election will be close regardless of who we nominate.”

But there is far less flexibility for candidates in smaller districts. That has prompted Republicans to celebrate as they look to reclaim ground they lost in 2018 when largely affluent suburbs rebelled against the GOP in a protest of Trump.

“The Democrats’ embrace of socialism is going to cost them their majority-- I mean, it’s as simple as that,” said Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Bernie is about as good a contrast as we could have ever hoped for.”

Bear in mind that Tom Emmer-- and the economic royalists inside the Democratic Party-- are repeating, virtually word for word, what the conservatives said about FDR, who they also-- unflinchingly and 4 two decades-- labeled a Socialist!!!!! I might remind you that, in every possible way, Michael Bloomberg is the perfect antithesis of Franklin Roosevelt. This is what happened when the conservatives, in some cases of both parties, went to the voters with the Socialism!!!! message against FDR and the Democratic Party:

1932

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 22,821,277 (57.4%) to 15,761,254 (39.7%)
• electoral vote 472 to 59 (GOP carried 6 states)
• Senate- 58-37 (GOP lost 11 seats)
• House- 313-117 (GOP lost 101 seats)

1936

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 27,747,636 (60.8%) to 16,679,543 (36.5%)
• electoral vote 523 to 8 (GOP carried 2 states)
• Senate- 74-17 (GOP lost 5 seats)
• House- 334-88 (GOP lost 15 seats)

1940-- when the VP nominee was an actual Socialist

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 27,313,945 (54.7%) to 22,347,744 (44.8%)
• electoral vote 449 to 82 (GOP carried 10 states)
• Senate- 66-27 (Dems lost 2 seats)
• House- 267-162 (GOP lost 7 seats)

1944

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 25,612,916 (53.4%) to 22,017,929 (45.9%)
• electoral vote 432 to 99 (GOP carried 12 states)
• Senate- 58-37 (no net change)
• House- 242-191 (GOP lost 18 seats)

Alan Grayson (D-FL) is taking a time-out from Congress. I spoke with him yesterday and he told me that "In every election cycle for many years now, the GOP tries to play mind games with Democrats to turn them against their own leaders, whom the GOP says are never 'moderate' enough to win-- except when they do. And whenever those Democratic leaders actually are progressive, the GOP finds willing co-conspirators in that mind-game among right-wing Democrats. The term 'unelectable' is simply a weapon that right-wing Democrats deploy against progressives, time after time after time. You could make a good argument that Trump actually is further to the right than Bernie is to the left. Where, oh where, are the 'moderate' GOP politicos, wringing their hands over that? Why is it that when Bernie says something lefty, he’s called a socialist, and when Trump does something racist or crazy or just stupid, he’s 'motivating his base?'"





I asked a few members of Congress and some candidates for Congress how they see this dynamic themselves. I started with Los Angeles' liberal lion, Ted Lieu, who endorsed Kamala Harris with whom he had worked closely on several of his legislative priorities both in Sacramento and in Washington. He hasn't endorsed anyone since she withdrew and told me that he will support whoever wins the Democratic nomination. He added that he also noted "that the conventional wisdom of Washington insiders was wrong about Obama, wrong about Trump and currently contradicted by the actual voter data when it comes to Sanders. For 5 years the polls have shown Sanders beats Trump in head to head matchups. And in a recent Emerson poll this month, it shows Sanders was the only Democratic candidate to beat Trump in a head to head matchup. The notion that in November a voter will turn out and vote for Sanders and then somehow vote for the down ballot GOP congressional candidate is simply not supported by the data."

Tom Suozzi is a New Dem from Long Island, a serious legislator with serious ideas about how to serve his constituents. We don't agree on issues as much as Ted Lieu and I do but we do agree about the whole party coming together after Bernie is the nominee. Tom endorsed one of the other presidential candidates but told me yesterday that "A big problem in America today is that too many people view their fellow Americans with contempt. It is ok to disagree and disagree strongly, but contempt will destroy us. Just because you don’t agree with someone in their choice of candidate or their position on a particular issue, it does not mean it is ok to view them with contempt. If we are to defeat Donald Trump, we need everyone from Bernie and AOC, all the way to Bloomberg and Biden and everyone in between. If we can’t hold that coalition together, we lose. Campaigns are tough, and candidates and their surrogates play to win, but everyone must recognize that when the dust settles, we need to unite behind the winner, even if it wasn’t your first choice. If we don’t, then Trump wins again." I have no doubt that Tom Suozzi will be enthusiastically introducing Bernie to his constituents when Bernie visits Huntington and Hicksville next fall.

Tomas Ramos, a Bronx-based Berniecrat who is campaigning for an open congressional seat on the same set of issues Bernie is campaigning on, told me last night that "The notion that if Bernie is at the top of the ticket we lose Congress is simply not true. Bernie created a movement the first time around and now the movement has only gotten bigger, with young and old people alike. When I’m out door knocking I ask my voters who are they supporting for president, the common answer is Bernie. People are more excited for Bernie than ever before. The voters in my district know that we need to beat Trump and they know that Bernie is the guy to do so."

Liam O'Mara, a history professor taking on Trumpist Rep. Ken Calvert in Riverside County, California, pointed out that "Democrats have struggled to hold onto congressional majorities, but one key reason for that is their tepid stances on the issues, their frequent preference for right-wing economics, and their refusal to push for policies which are broadly popular. Congress often has an approval rating in the single digits. The drift to the right since the late 1980s has been a demonstrable failure. We have lost most statehouses and most presidential elections, and struggled to hold onto either chamber of Congress. Something has to give. The way forward for Democrats is to embrace progressivism. This isn't the 1970s-- the country has caught up with the progressive agenda on a wide range of issues. Most Americans oppose corporate money's control of our elections. Most Americans support single-payer health care. Most Americans oppose our interventionist foreign policy and our many wars. Most Americans accept the consensus on global warming and want serious action. Most Americans distrust the bankers who keep crashing our economy, and the neoliberal trade deals that have undermined workers, and want better oversight. The list goes on and on. Sanders is doing well because people are tired of the same old message. He is bringing new people into the political process, talking about issues that affect most of our lives, and he's been winning over independents and even conservatives. If Democrats really want to control Congress and the White House, there is a path to both available. I can tell you that in my own race, running a respectful campaign which will talk to anyone and focusses on policy rather than partisanship has been resonating. It is something we should see more of in this country, not less.

Milwaukie Mayor Mark Gamba, running for the Oregon seat held by Blue Dog Kurt Schrader, who agrees with Republicans on crucial issues more than with Democrats. " Look, people get all caught up in a variety of complicated theories about what some candidate will or won't do to down ticket races," Gamba told me yesterday. "I think it's much more simple than that. The vast majority of the American people have been getting screwed by neo-liberal, profits first, policies enacted by both Republicans and 'centerist' Democrats for over 40 years. For simplicity's sake, let's call that the status-quo. In 2016 they were desperate for that to change. They still are. Trump has proven himself to be even more blatant about screwing everyone but the 1%. The way we bring out an excited electorate is to offer them real solutions to their problems-- Sanders offers that. So do about 100 people running tough races against incumbent members of the status-quo all over America. What the talking heads are truly frightened of, is Sanders AND an army of like-minded people getting elected and enacting real change that supports the 99%, taxes the bloody rich for a change, stops climate chaos and reduces the constant misery for a few hundred million Americans. So we will continue to see all kinds of half assed theories telling us why electing Sanders will doom us all. Never forget that the talking heads and the media conglomerates they work for are all part of the 1%.

Kim Williams is the Central Valley progressive running for the seat occupied by Blue Dog Jim Costa. "Since last summer," she explained, "I’ve knocked on thousands of doors. I’ve heard people’s stories, shook their hands, and listened to their dreams for their children. None of these conversations align with the establishment’s understanding of America. One hundred and forty million Americans have been left behind. They don’t see themselves in the booming economy and they don’t see themselves in the national news. Sanders is the only candidate that acknowledges the very real challenges people face and actually offers solutions. It’s absurd to keep attacking him on his electability when he keeps winning, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that he’s never really been attacked when the media has been unrelenting in their negative coverage. But while pundits panic over the presidential election, we see something very different on the ground. Being a progressive candidate with a policy platform that aligns with Sanders has been a tremendous asset, not a burden. In fact, if someone wanted to coin a phrase for down-ballot races, I think referring to candidates as “Bernie Democrats” would actually be quite powerful. It immediately conveys policy positions and lets normally disenfranchised voters know you’re on their side. This might shake the establishment, but it energizes the majority. And they will ultimately decide who represents them."

Arizona workers rights champion and progressive candidate for Congress, Eva Putzova, was a Bernie delegate to last cycle's DNC. Today she's running on an Arizona version of that platform. "The assertion that a Sanders nomination wlll result in Democrats losing congressional seats is ridiculous. The opposite is the case," she said. "In my district, the momentum generated by Sanders campaign is already firing up the base of the party-- youth, people of color, women, workers and climate activists, and even moderates who are starting to realize that Sanders is fighting to make their lives better and more secure. From my perspective, and that of my campaign, if Sanders wins the nomination it increases my chances to win the primary in August and the general election in November. I share Rep. Lieu's assessment that voters who turn out for Sanders will not vote for GOP candidates down-ballot. All Democrats, particularly progressive Democrats, will benefit if Sanders is at the top of the ticket."

"In NY-25, the issues that comprise Bernie Sanders’s platform are the ones that most enthuse our Democratic base," said Rochester progressive Robin Wilt. "As I go door-to-door, Bernie’s platform resonates with the voters whom I engage. I want to clarify that when I mention the Democratic base, I’m not talking about the elite Democratic establishment that comprise fewer than 1% of our Democratic electorate. We recently had occasion to histogram the age of the Democratic Committee in the jurisdiction of Brighton, NY, where I serve in town government. Both the mean and the average age were…wait for it… 62 years of age. The Democratic elite are not representative of the registered base of Democrats. They never have been, and they never will be. When we continue to ignore the voice of the overwhelming majority of the electorate, in favor of amplifying the voices of the establishment that increasingly does not resemble the registered base, we risk mistaking the will of party operatives with the will of the people. I was at the rally at Queensbridge Park. I have been canvassing my Congressional District. The masses believe in the future promised by Bernie Sanders, not the cynicism expressed by an increasingly detached party elite."