Amy Kennedy Is Besting New Jersey Turncoat Jeff Van Drew. Is That Any Reason To Celebrate?
>
What's worse? This or supporting another dynast? |
The New Dems, even more so that the withered and impotent Blue Dogs, are the heart of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. They are Wall Street and corporate-America sell outs and have more in common with Eisenhower-era Republicans than they do with progressive Democrats. They vote badly but, worse yet, they prevent progressive legislation from ever getting to the floor, even in a Democratically-controlled House.
DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos quietly resigned from the Blue Dogs to become a New Dem when she decided to work towards become Speaker. She has worked diligently and successfully to knock out progressives where ever possible to make sure Democratic Party nominees would be New Dems. The New Dems themselves have endorsed 25 candidates so far this cycle-- and have 6 others on their website as "Candidates to watch." They may be better than Republicans-- but only because the GOP has moved so far right that they can now be classified as a fascist party. The New Dems today are what the Republicans were previously-- not racist, misogynistic or homophobic, but virulently pro-corporate and anti-working class.
The new Dem leadership, chaired by Derek Kilmer (WA), is basically putrid: Ann Kuster (NH), Scott Peters (CA), Terri Sewell (AL), Suzane DelBene (WA), corrupt coke freak Pete Aguilar (CA), Kathleen Rice (NY), Ami Bera (CA), Chrissy Houlahan (PA) and Mikie Sherrill (NJ). These are cowardly careerists, not leaders. There can be no progress as long as they dominate the Democratic House caucus.
Here's dozen of their worst recruits this cycle: the Democrats who will guarantee-- along with Biden's White House and Schumer's Senate-- that there is a massive red wave in 2022.
The worst of the New Dem recruits have also been endorsed by the Blue Dogs: Eugene DePasquale (PA), Margaret Good (FL), Jackie Gordon (NY), Christina Hale (IN) and Sri Kulkarni (TX), a future Pete Aguilar pal. Both organizations are very careful with their endorsements. Believe me-- no progressives, none, never. So... when people were rejoicing at the Monmouth poll released yesterday showing former Blue Dog/New Dem/DCCC recruit, NRA hero Jefferson Van Drew-- now a devoted Trumpist and officially a Republican-- being defeated by Amy Kennedy, I wondered how many Democratic voters know what to expect from her.
Oh, she'll be a bit of an improvement over Van Drew for sure. But I would suggest you use your psychic energy to help elect these men and women, not another New Dem.
Obama won NJ's 2nd district with around 53.5% both times he ran. In 2016, Trump beat Hillary 50.6% to 46.0%. The seat opened up in 2018 and the DCCC and Blue Dogs and New Dems recruited the absolute worst member of the New Jersey state legislature, Jefferson Van Drew. He ran against a clown the GOP didn't support, Seth Grossman. Grossman spent $299,475 to Van Drew's $1,877,531. The DCCC and it's allies spent another $1.1 million bolstering Van Drew and attacking Grossman.
This cycle, Kennedy has raised $1,529,882, most of which she spent in the primary, to Van Drew's $2,548,688. But... the DCCC and it's allies have already spent nearly $2 million on Kennedy, while a Trump PAC has spent around $260,000 defending Van Drew.
Monmouth reported that "Among all registered voters, Kennedy is supported by 49% and Van Drew is supported by 44%. Another 1% say they will support a third party candidate and 5% are undecided. Among likely voters in a high turnout scenario, Kennedy holds a 50% to 44% edge. She maintains that lead in a lower turnout model with 51% supporting her to 44% for Van Drew. It should be noted that these leads are all within the survey’s margin of error. Kennedy holds a 94% to 1% advantage among Democratic voters while Van Drew has an 89% to 8% lead among his now-fellow Republicans. Independents prefer Kennedy by a 50% to 40% margin... In the presidential election, Joe Biden holds a small lead over Donald Trump in the district-- 48% to 45% among all registered voters, 50% to 45% among likely voters in a high turnout election, and 49% to 45% in a low turnout election."
Meanwhile... this powerful, incredibly well-articulated and unprecedented video by a former First Lady may upset a White House occupant trying to keep his blood pressure from spiking and killing him. All the worst of luck, Pig Man!
Labels: 2020 congressional elections, Amy Kennedy, Jeff Van Drew, Michelle Obama, New Dems, New Jersey, NJ-02, Republican wing of the Democratic Party
2 Comments:
The Kennedy-Van Drew race is just the Biden-Trump contest writ small. In both cases, the lesser evil, though a very real evil, is still clearly the lesser one.
Amy Kennedy opposes both M4A and marijuana legalization. Progressives supported her primarily because she was running against the Norcross candidate, Brigid Harrison. It looks like Kennedy and her progressive backers were only using each other in a marriage of convenience.
The Norcross machine doesn’t really like Kennedy, but they’re willing to support her now that she's no longer so tight with the progressives whose support enabled her to win the primary. And progressives aren't all that happy with her either.
So no one is South Jersey is enthusiastic about Kennedy, only about getting rid of Van Drew.
11:20 is quite correct, but also misses the target.
"rejoicing at the Monmouth poll ... showing (neo nazi former democrap) Jefferson Van Drew-- ... being defeated by Amy Kennedy, I wondered how many Democratic voters know what to expect from her."
the answer of how many is zero.
what to expect of kennedy? she'll endorse pelo$i for $peaker and put her thermal-enhancer into her seat and spend 2 years raising $$ for the democraps.
It is pure coincidence that kennedy and pelo$i agree on just about everything they will never EVER "*do*". Once the $peaker gets the nod, the $peaker is the only one who decides.
period.
AOC? Kennedy? it makes absolutely zero difference in the end. pelo$i is who decides everything.
Post a Comment
<< Home