washingtonmonthly--2020-03-04--The Coalition That Joe Built

The Coalition That Joe Built

Last April , Edward-Isaac Dovere explained the strategy that Bernie Sanders developed to win the Democratic primary .
Of course , that began to break down when Buttigieg challenged Sanders in both Iowa and New Hampshire .
By the time the race got to South Carolina , Booker and Harris were out , but African American voters helped Biden sweep the state .
As we saw on Super Tuesday , however , Sanders continues to hold on to the 30 percent his campaign hoped would get him enough delegates heading into the convention .
The question that remains is whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atkins pointed out , Biden ’ s performance on Tuesday demonstrates the makings of a winning coalition that will challenge the strategy adopted by the Sanders campaign .
Let ’ s take a look at how he did that .
With all that ’ s happened since Biden first entered the race , some people seem to have forgotten that the initial take on him was that he was the guy from Scranton that could win with working class voters .
According to the poll aggregates assembled by the Economist , Biden continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters .
The reason a lot of people forgot about Biden ’ s strength among working-class voters is because , from the moment he announced his presidential campaign , he has had overwhelming support from African Americans—especially in the South .
We ’ ve already talked a lot about why that is happening .
But as someone on Twitter recently put it , African Americans know that Biden has evolved in a way that is “ dear to our hearts.
” It isn ’ t just that he served as Barack Obama ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is uncommon for older white men , he did so by being second-in-command to a black man and never trying to undermine him in the process .
That , and speeches like this earned Biden the loyalty of African American voters .
Heading into the 2016 election , all of the chatter was about how angry voters were .
Initially it was assumed that the anger was fueled by economic anxiety .
But over time , it became clear that a better word to describe what happened is grievance—especially the kind felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
The president and his enablers will once again court that sense of grievance in the 2020 election , while candidates like Sanders and Warren have been attempting to tap into the economic anxiety that Americans feel .
But all of that might be a miscalculation .
After four years of Donald Trump , 2020 will not be a repeat of 2016 .
Beyond the issues that are of primary concern to some voters , it is becoming clear that an awful lot of people are tired of the anger and division @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writer Julie Zebrak confirmed why suburban women turned out in force for Joe Biden on Super Tuesday .
Women are tired of a politics that is all about identifying an enemy and going on the attack .
They ’ re even more tired of the effect Donald Trump ’ s bullying is having on their children—not to mention the cruelty of policies like locking little ones up in cages .
That is something else that Joe Biden tapped into .
While a lot of people credit the endorsement of Rep. Clyburn for Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this video captured a significant moment just two days before the primary .
Cynical political pundits might be dismissive of that moment , but keep in mind that during the remainder of that town hall discussion , two people who rose to ask questions indicated that Biden had won their support that night .
What that tells us is that voters are tired of cruelty and are hungry for empathy .
That hunger isn ’ t restricted to suburban moms .
A lot of people are ready to restore some humanity to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big part of the coalition Biden is building .
The group where Biden ’ s coalition demonstrated weakness on Super Tuesday was with young people .
As Martin Longman has already noted , they are not turning out to vote so far in the primaries , perhaps demonstrating that , while the revolution Sanders is proposing appeals to some of them , it isn ’ t necessarily what the majority of young people are looking for .
What would galvanize them to get out and vote is definitely an issue that still needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bloomberg has now dropped out of the race , the Sanders strategy of getting to the convention with 30 percent support is increasingly looking like a miscalculation .
As has always been the case in Democratic politics , building a coalition is always a better bet .

Last April, Edward-Isaac Dovere explained the strategy that Bernie Sanders developed to win the Democratic primary.
He’s counting on winning Iowa and New Hampshire, where he was already surprisingly strong in 2016, and hoping that Cory Booker and Kamala Harris will split the black electorate in South Carolina and give him a path to slip through there, too. And then, Sanders aides believe, he’ll easily win enough delegates to put him into contention at the convention. They say they don’t need him to get more than 30 percent to make that happen.
Of course, that began to break down when Buttigieg challenged Sanders in both Iowa and New Hampshire. By the time the race got to South Carolina, Booker and Harris were out, but African American voters helped Biden sweep the state. As we saw on Super Tuesday, however, Sanders continues to hold on to the 30 percent his campaign hoped would get him enough delegates heading into the convention.
The question that remains is whether that will be enough. As David Atkins pointed out, Biden’s performance on Tuesday demonstrates the makings of a winning coalition that will challenge the strategy adopted by the Sanders campaign. Let’s take a look at how he did that.
With all that’s happened since Biden first entered the race, some people seem to have forgotten that the initial take on him was that he was the guy from Scranton that could win with working class voters. According to the poll aggregates assembled by the Economist, Biden continues to garner the support of non college-educated voters.
The reason a lot of people forgot about Biden’s strength among working-class voters is because, from the moment he announced his presidential campaign, he has had overwhelming support from African Americans—especially in the South. We’ve already talked a lot about why that is happening. But as someone on Twitter recently put it, African Americans know that Biden has evolved in a way that is “dear to our hearts.” It isn’t just that he served as Barack Obama’s vice president. In a way that is uncommon for older white men, he did so by being second-in-command to a black man and never trying to undermine him in the process. That, and speeches like this earned Biden the loyalty of African American voters.
Heading into the 2016 election, all of the chatter was about how angry voters were. Initially it was assumed that the anger was fueled by economic anxiety. But over time, it became clear that a better word to describe what happened is grievance—especially the kind felt by the nostalgia voters who supported Donald Trump.
The president and his enablers will once again court that sense of grievance in the 2020 election, while candidates like Sanders and Warren have been attempting to tap into the economic anxiety that Americans feel. But all of that might be a miscalculation.
After four years of Donald Trump, 2020 will not be a repeat of 2016. Beyond the issues that are of primary concern to some voters, it is becoming clear that an awful lot of people are tired of the anger and division. Along those lines, Washington Monthly writer Julie Zebrak confirmed why suburban women turned out in force for Joe Biden on Super Tuesday.
Women are tired of a politics that is all about identifying an enemy and going on the attack. They’re even more tired of the effect Donald Trump’s bullying is having on their children—not to mention the cruelty of policies like locking little ones up in cages.
That is something else that Joe Biden tapped into. While a lot of people credit the endorsement of Rep. Clyburn for Biden’s sweep in South Carolina, this video captured a significant moment just two days before the primary.
Cynical political pundits might be dismissive of that moment, but keep in mind that during the remainder of that town hall discussion, two people who rose to ask questions indicated that Biden had won their support that night. What that tells us is that voters are tired of cruelty and are hungry for empathy. That hunger isn’t restricted to suburban moms. A lot of people are ready to restore some humanity to the White House. Those folks are a big part of the coalition Biden is building.
The group where Biden’s coalition demonstrated weakness on Super Tuesday was with young people. As Martin Longman has already noted, they are not turning out to vote so far in the primaries, perhaps demonstrating that, while the revolution Sanders is proposing appeals to some of them, it isn’t necessarily what the majority of young people are looking for. What would galvanize them to get out and vote is definitely an issue that still needs to be addressed.
Given the fact that Bloomberg has now dropped out of the race, the Sanders strategy of getting to the convention with 30 percent support is increasingly looking like a miscalculation. As has always been the case in Democratic politics, building a coalition is always a better bet.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-04--The Youth Vote Emerges as a Problem for the Democrats

Super Tuesday voting concluded only a few hours ago , but political archeologists are already turning over the rubble .
An early narrative focuses on the failure of young voters to turn out .
According to the exit polls , youth turnout did not increase in a single Super Tuesday state .
In fact , the profile of the electorate skewed much older than in recent primary elections .
German Lopez of Vox explains : Consider Texas : According to NBC News ’ s exit polls , the Democratic electorate actually skewed older in Tuesday ’ s primary compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 13 and 18 percent of the electorate , respectively , was 65 and older .
In 2020 , it was 24 percent .
Texas is getting older , but not at a rapid enough rate for that increase to be tied solely to state demographic trends .
In fact , the share of the population that ’ s 65 and older is just 12.6 percent .
Given Biden ’ s strength with this group of Texas voters — 46 percent support Biden , while just 16 percent support Sanders — that surge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s narrow victory in the state .
Many commentators are questioning how Bernie Sanders expects to sell people on his revolution if he can ’ t even mobilize the kids to cast their votes .
It ’ s a reasonable question , but Sanders did at least accomplish half of his goal .
For example , among California voters age 18-29 , Sanders beat Biden by a staggering 72 percent to 5 percent .
In Texas , the margin was 65 percent to 11 percent .
So , Sanders really does have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s undeniable that he ’ s produced some excitement among them , but somewhere this formula broke down .
To get a clue of what happened , we might want to look at Virginia .
The surge in turnout was fueled in suburban areas , particularly in Northern Virginia .
It looks like suburbanites were chomping at the bit to race to the polls .
When they got there , they opted for Biden , and this swamped Sanders ’ s advantage with young voters .
It also drove down young voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making them appear apathetic .
But if they were apathetic by comparison to their parents and grandparents , they were also emphatic that they want more change than Biden is promising .
What else can you say when only 1 in 20 Californians under 30 voted for the former vice president ?
I think there are some major warning signs in that number .
The youth vote is one of the Democratic Party ’ s strongest demographics , and that means every slight uptick in their participation pays off in a major way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can dominate in Democratic primaries , but he ’ s going to need young voters to both support him in November and to turn out in big numbers .
There ’ s nothing in the exit polls from Super Tuesday to suggest that he ’ s on track in this respect .
If even Sanders struggles to get them to vote at their punching weight , what hope will Biden have ?
There ’ s a lot of piling on of Sanders and mockery of his promise of revolution , but youth turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be solved .
Sanders ’ supporters have a point when they warn against ignoring the strong consensus of people under 30 , as they represent the future of the country .
I expect them to emphasize this point in the next phase of the campaign .
Having said that , Biden just annihilated Sanders even while being slaughtered with the youth vote , and Sanders clearly didn ’ t deliver on his effort to reshape the electorate in his favor .
Anyone who preferred Biden because they want the Democrats to protect and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vindicated .
What the Democrats need is to pull these two parts of the party together , and that ’ s something Sanders will never be able to do .
If Biden can ’ t win over more young voters , the convention might want to find a third option .

Super Tuesday voting concluded only a few hours ago, but political archeologists are already turning over the rubble. An early narrative focuses on the failure of young voters to turn out. According to the exit polls, youth turnout did not increase in a single Super Tuesday state. In fact, the profile of the electorate skewed much older than in recent primary elections. German Lopez of Vox explains:
Consider Texas: According to NBC News’s exit polls, the Democratic electorate actually skewed older in Tuesday’s primary compared to past primaries. In 2008 and 2016, 13 and 18 percent of the electorate, respectively, was 65 and older. In 2020, it was 24 percent. Texas is getting older, but not at a rapid enough rate for that increase to be tied solely to state demographic trends. In fact, the share of the population that’s 65 and older is just 12.6 percent. Given Biden’s strength with this group of Texas voters — 46 percent support Biden, while just 16 percent support Sanders — that surge in older voters helps explain Biden’s narrow victory in the state.
Many commentators are questioning how Bernie Sanders expects to sell people on his revolution if he can’t even mobilize the kids to cast their votes. It’s a reasonable question, but Sanders did at least accomplish half of his goal. For example, among California voters age 18-29, Sanders beat Biden by a staggering 72 percent to 5 percent. In Texas, the margin was 65 percent to 11 percent.
So, Sanders really does have the overwhelming support of young voters and it’s undeniable that he’s produced some excitement among them, but somewhere this formula broke down. To get a clue of what happened, we might want to look at Virginia.
Turnout in Virginia’s Democratic primary surged to more than 1.3 million voters, from about 783,000 in 2016 and 986,000 in 2008. Former Vice President Joe Biden, who won the state decisively, said Tuesday night that “the turnout turned out for us” in Virginia, and “there is some evidence he is correct,” The Washington Post reports. “Of the voters who sat out the 2016 primary and cast ballots in 2020, Biden won nearly 60 percent, according to a Washington Post statistical model.”
The surge in turnout was fueled in suburban areas, particularly in Northern Virginia. It looks like suburbanites were chomping at the bit to race to the polls. When they got there, they opted for Biden, and this swamped Sanders’s advantage with young voters. It also drove down young voters as a percentage of the electorate, making them appear apathetic.
But if they were apathetic by comparison to their parents and grandparents, they were also emphatic that they want more change than Biden is promising. What else can you say when only 1 in 20 Californians under 30 voted for the former vice president? I think there are some major warning signs in that number. The youth vote is one of the Democratic Party’s strongest demographics, and that means every slight uptick in their participation pays off in a major way.
Biden showed that the suburban strategy can dominate in Democratic primaries, but he’s going to need young voters to both support him in November and to turn out in big numbers. There’s nothing in the exit polls from Super Tuesday to suggest that he’s on track in this respect. If even Sanders struggles to get them to vote at their punching weight, what hope will Biden have?
There’s a lot of piling on of Sanders and mockery of his promise of revolution, but youth turnout is now a clear challenge that must be solved. Sanders’ supporters have a point when they warn against ignoring the strong consensus of people under 30, as they represent the future of the country. I expect them to emphasize this point in the next phase of the campaign.
Having said that, Biden just annihilated Sanders even while being slaughtered with the youth vote, and Sanders clearly didn’t deliver on his effort to reshape the electorate in his favor. Anyone who preferred Biden because they want the Democrats to protect and expand their suburban-based House majority was completely vindicated.
What the Democrats need is to pull these two parts of the party together, and that’s something Sanders will never be able to do. If Biden can’t win over more young voters, the convention might want to find a third option.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-05--The Media Still Won’t Address Trump’s Unfitness for Office

Now that Biden is once again the front-runner in the Democratic primary , Trump has resumed his attacks .
“ Sleepy Joe , ” Mr. Trump continued , “ he doesn ’ t even know where he is or what he ’ s doing or what office he ’ s running for .
Honestly , I don ’ t think he knows what office he ’ s running for.
” If Mr. Biden won the presidency , Mr. Trump said , his staff would actually do the governing .
“ They ’ re going to put him into a home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be running the country , ” the president said , “ and they ’ re going to be super-left , radical crazies .
And Joe ’ s going to be in a home and he ’ ll be watching television.
” But that wasn ’ t the first time the president lodged that kind of criticism at his likely opponent .
Here ’ s what he tweeted last summer .
As Max Boot asked at the time , “ Does Trump really want to debate mental fitness ?
” Of course , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the president ’ s verbal vomiting .
The more likely explanation is that the most unfit man to ever occupy the Oval Office is once again engaging in projection .
After all , it ’ s what he always does , so this is nothing new .
After Trump ’ s most recent attacks , Greg Sargent brought up the critical issue in all of this .
[ Trump ] can be confident not just that those charges will achieve widespread uncritical media amplification , but also that his purported identification of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , be placed on a plane of equivalence with their identification of the same traits in him .
Now that Biden might be the nominee , Trump is already casting him as mentally unfit for the presidency .
But Trump might not perceive the space to get away with this if the press corps had not thus far failed , in some very fundamental sense , to reckon with just how mentally unfit for the job Trump is himself .
I can respond with a big “ amen ” to that !
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption and lying , I would add that it is way past time for the media to recognize that we are dealing with a president who has serious mental health issues .
This is becoming especially problematic during a time when we are facing a possible pandemic .
As just one example , here is a quote from Trump ’ s news conference on the coronavirus a week ago .
This will end .
This will end .
You look at flu season .
I said 26,000 people .
I never heard of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , going up to 69,000 people , doctor , you told me before .
69,000 people die every year—from 20 to 69—every year from the flu .
Think of that .
That ’ s incredible .
So far , the results of all of this that everybody is reading about—and part of the thing is , you want to keep it the way it is , you don ’ t want to see panic , because there ’ s no reason to be panicked about it—but when I mentioned the flu , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this just like flu ?
” Because people die from the flu .
And this is very unusual .
And it is a little bit different , but in some ways it ’ s easier and in some ways it ’ s a little bit tougher , but we have it so well under control , I mean , we really have done a very good job .
[ Watch video . ]
After providing several more quotes like that from the news conference , Dan Froomkin wrote this .
Tell me this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior by the President of the United States of United States of America at a critically important briefing about a potentially deadly pandemic that does not bear mentioning .
Wednesday ’ s briefing was arguably the most abnormal moment yet in a profoundly abnormal presidency .
But top news organizations , rather than accurately representing Trump ’ s alarming behavior , made it sound like nothing untoward happened at all .
They made it sound like some real news was made : That Trump put Vice President Mike Pence in charge of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; that the president urged calm .
Here is how a couple of public figures who aren ’ t journalists responded .
The unwillingness of the news media to discuss Trump ’ s unfitness for office keeps the public from grappling with the fact that his response to this crisis has been a disaster .
That will also shield the president from accountability when this particular crisis gets much worse—which most experts assume is just a matter of time .
Beyond that , as Sargent suggests , it opens the door to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Trump accuses Biden of being unfit for office .
Since shortly after Trump was inaugurated , I have been saying that we need to talk about his mental health issues .
To anyone who has been paying attention , he has only deteriorated since that time .
What has been interesting to watch is that the ones who have been willing to talk about this in any depth are primarily the NeverTrumpers .
For example , here is what Peter Wehner , who served under three Republican presidents , wrote a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a person with an advanced degree in psychology to see Trump ’ s narcissism and lack of empathy , his vindictiveness and pathological lying , his impulsivity and callousness , his inability to be guided by norms , or his shamelessness and dehumanization of those who do not abide his wishes .
His condition is getting worse , not better—and there are now fewer people in the administration able to contain the president and act as a check on his worst impulses… Whether the worst scenarios come to pass or not is right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know is that the president is a person who seems to draw energy and purpose from maliciousness and transgressive acts , from creating enmity among people of different races , religions , and backgrounds , and from attacking the weak , the honorable , and even the dead .
Donald Trump is not well , and as long as he is president , our nation is not safe .
It is becoming more clear every day that none of us are safe as long as Donald Trump is president .
That is why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the elephant in the room that the media wants to avoid : this president is not well .

Now that Biden is once again the front-runner in the Democratic primary, Trump has resumed his attacks.
“Sleepy Joe,” Mr. Trump continued, “he doesn’t even know where he is or what he’s doing or what office he’s running for. Honestly, I don’t think he knows what office he’s running for.” If Mr. Biden won the presidency, Mr. Trump said, his staff would actually do the governing. “They’re going to put him into a home, and other people are going to be running the country,” the president said, “and they’re going to be super-left, radical crazies. And Joe’s going to be in a home and he’ll be watching television.”
But that wasn’t the first time the president lodged that kind of criticism at his likely opponent. Here’s what he tweeted last summer.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1160320950468009984
As Max Boot asked at the time, “Does Trump really want to debate mental fitness?” Of course, the question assumes that there is some forethought to the president’s verbal vomiting. The more likely explanation is that the most unfit man to ever occupy the Oval Office is once again engaging in projection. After all, it’s what he always does, so this is nothing new.
After Trump’s most recent attacks, Greg Sargent brought up the critical issue in all of this.
[Trump] can be confident not just that those charges will achieve widespread uncritical media amplification, but also that his purported identification of such traits in opponents will, absurdly, be placed on a plane of equivalence with their identification of the same traits in him. Now that Biden might be the nominee, Trump is already casting him as mentally unfit for the presidency. But Trump might not perceive the space to get away with this if the press corps had not thus far failed, in some very fundamental sense, to reckon with just how mentally unfit for the job Trump is himself.
I can respond with a big “amen” to that! And while Sargent focuses on Trump’s corruption and lying, I would add that it is way past time for the media to recognize that we are dealing with a president who has serious mental health issues.
This is becoming especially problematic during a time when we are facing a possible pandemic. As just one example, here is a quote from Trump’s news conference on the coronavirus a week ago.
This will end. This will end. You look at flu season. I said 26,000 people. I never heard of a number like that: 26,000 people, going up to 69,000 people, doctor, you told me before. 69,000 people die every year—from 20 to 69—every year from the flu. Think of that. That’s incredible. So far, the results of all of this that everybody is reading about—and part of the thing is, you want to keep it the way it is, you don’t want to see panic, because there’s no reason to be panicked about it—but when I mentioned the flu, I asked the various doctors, “Is this just like flu?” Because people die from the flu. And this is very unusual. And it is a little bit different, but in some ways it’s easier and in some ways it’s a little bit tougher, but we have it so well under control, I mean, we really have done a very good job. [Watch video.]
After providing several more quotes like that from the news conference, Dan Froomkin wrote this.
Tell me this is normal. Tell me this is unremarkable. Tell me this is behavior by the President of the United States of United States of America at a critically important briefing about a potentially deadly pandemic that does not bear mentioning. Wednesday’s briefing was arguably the most abnormal moment yet in a profoundly abnormal presidency. But top news organizations, rather than accurately representing Trump’s alarming behavior, made it sound like nothing untoward happened at all. They made it sound like some real news was made: That Trump put Vice President Mike Pence in charge of the government’s response to the coronavirus; that the president urged calm.
Here is how a couple of public figures who aren’t journalists responded.
The unwillingness of the news media to discuss Trump’s unfitness for office keeps the public from grappling with the fact that his response to this crisis has been a disaster. That will also shield the president from accountability when this particular crisis gets much worse—which most experts assume is just a matter of time.
Beyond that, as Sargent suggests, it opens the door to a “both sides do it” response when Trump accuses Biden of being unfit for office.
Since shortly after Trump was inaugurated, I have been saying that we need to talk about his mental health issues. To anyone who has been paying attention, he has only deteriorated since that time. What has been interesting to watch is that the ones who have been willing to talk about this in any depth are primarily the NeverTrumpers. For example, here is what Peter Wehner, who served under three Republican presidents, wrote a year ago.
It doesn’t take a person with an advanced degree in psychology to see Trump’s narcissism and lack of empathy, his vindictiveness and pathological lying, his impulsivity and callousness, his inability to be guided by norms, or his shamelessness and dehumanization of those who do not abide his wishes. His condition is getting worse, not better—and there are now fewer people in the administration able to contain the president and act as a check on his worst impulses… Whether the worst scenarios come to pass or not is right now unknowable. But what we do know is that the president is a person who seems to draw energy and purpose from maliciousness and transgressive acts, from creating enmity among people of different races, religions, and backgrounds, and from attacking the weak, the honorable, and even the dead. Donald Trump is not well, and as long as he is president, our nation is not safe.
It is becoming more clear every day that none of us are safe as long as Donald Trump is president. That is why all of us have to talk about the elephant in the room that the media wants to avoid: this president is not well.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-05--Extending the Female Political Pipeline Through Film

By now , we ’ ve all heard about the record-breaking number of women who ran for office in 2018 , largely in response to Donald Trump ’ s upset victory over Hillary Clinton .
The totals tell the tale .
In 2018 , 476 women ran for House seats , and 102 won ; that beat the previous record of 252 women running and 84 winning seats in 2014 .
Similarly , in 2018 , 53 women ran for Senate seats , and 14 won .
At the same time , the most women in American history won governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state legislatures ( 3,418 ) .
Democratic women made most of those gains , capturing 87 percent of the House wins and 78 percent of the Senate wins .
That influx of successful female candidates didn ’ t come out of nowhere .
All of the candidates earned their wins through courage , grit , and overcoming the odds , but they also benefitted from the critical support of groups like Emily ’ s List , Emerge America , She Should Run , Run for Something , and other organizations .
The training @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support that these institutions provided to get women onto ballots , through their campaigns , and into seats is nothing short of remarkable .
Since then , however , another tool has emerged to inspire and encourage women contemplating political office : the new genre of political films—many of which are documentaries—about women dominating the 2018 midterms .
Each film features a slightly different angle of women running .
Rachel Lears ’ documentary Knock Down the House followed the surge of progressive women who ran in 2018 , most notably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ million , making it the biggest sale of any documentary , ever .
Hulu just bought the Hillary documentary series , directed by Nanette Burstein .
It will begin streaming on March 6 .
Then there is And She Could Be Next , made by a team of women of color , featuring Stacey Abrams , Lucy McBath , Deb Haaland , Rashida Tlaib , and Veronica Escobar .
It premiered at the Toronto Film Festival and will be airing on PBS this summer .
Represent is another film directed and produced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women in the Midwest running for local office .
It will air on PBS in October .
Represent serves an especially useful purpose .
By focusing on down-ballot races , which are less costly and daunting than running for Congress of state-wide office , the film provides a glimpse of a more accessible on-ramp for would-be politicians .
What ’ s more , local politicians make concrete impacts on the communities they serve and learn the mechanics of governance .
Those women will one day be able to make the jump to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , when more women fill these roles , it creates a pipeline of qualified women to run for higher office .
Expect more films of this new genre to come to theaters—or Netflix accounts—near you .
The upcoming documentary Surge also extols the record number of first-time female candidates who ran for U.S. Congress in 2018 and who were looking , with palpable urgency , to flip their deeply red districts to blue .
The film follows three diverse candidates , one from Texas , Illinois , and Indiana , through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but one of them , Lauren Underwood , won , becoming the youngest black woman elected to Congress .
Besides taking the audience closely through three different campaigns , Surge demands something pressing of its viewers—to sustain the momentum of 2018 .
The filmmakers recognize that there ’ s no greater starting point than to demonstrate how women can become active in politics , and even run themselves .
As women marched and sought office in unprecedented numbers following Trump ’ s election , these female directors and producers recognized a moment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They memorialized the rise of women seeking positions of political power through their own unique cinematic lens , demystifying a formidable , unknown world .
This is , after all , part of the purpose of art : to alter our perceptions about the world and what is possible .
That ’ s the virtue of providing an up-close and personal depiction of campaign life .
In the process , the films offer female audience members secretly harboring political ambitions the reassurance they need .
Even more to their credit , the filmmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merely a sales pitch to get more women to run for office .
For instance , in Surge , the filmmakers expose the challenging aspects of running for office : the constant tedium of fundraising phone calls , strategically choosing a look for the campaign trail , the significant tax on one ’ s children or partners , putting on makeup in the car , the quest to come across as authentic , and the candidates ’ resilient reactions to the nasty , uncomfortable attacks from their opponents .
These films should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the country for women looking to join the pipeline .
More importantly , these films should be viewed as part of collegiate women ’ s studies programs and high school government curriculums , to instill in young women the possibility that they , too , can run for any office , even president .
It is precisely because Hillary Clinton suffered such a heart-wrenching defeat in 2016 that Americans are much more well-positioned to elect a female president in the relatively near future , even if not in 2020 .
Clinton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about their role—or lack thereof—in America ’ s political landscape .
In response , they have built up a deeper bench of women who are qualified and experienced to run for higher office , which is essential .
Otherwise , there could be no viable path to voting a woman into the White House .
We have already seen results .
The 2018 deluge of female candidates propelled forward a presidential primary field with the highest number of female candidates in American history .
Meanwhile , 62 female candidates are running for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 584 women are running for 307 House seats across 46 states .

By now, we’ve all heard about the record-breaking number of women who ran for office in 2018, largely in response to Donald Trump’s upset victory over Hillary Clinton.
The totals tell the tale. In 2018, 476 women ran for House seats, and 102 won; that beat the previous record of 252 women running and 84 winning seats in 2014. Similarly, in 2018, 53 women ran for Senate seats, and 14 won. At the same time, the most women in American history won governors offices (18) and seats in state legislatures (3,418). Democratic women made most of those gains, capturing 87 percent of the House wins and 78 percent of the Senate wins.
That influx of successful female candidates didn’t come out of nowhere. All of the candidates earned their wins through courage, grit, and overcoming the odds, but they also benefitted from the critical support of groups like Emily’s List, Emerge America, She Should Run, Run for Something, and other organizations. The training, mentoring, resources, and moral support that these institutions provided to get women onto ballots, through their campaigns, and into seats is nothing short of remarkable.
Since then, however, another tool has emerged to inspire and encourage women contemplating political office: the new genre of political films—many of which are documentaries—about women running for office.
Each film features a slightly different angle of women running. Rachel Lears’ documentary Knock Down the House followed the surge of progressive women who ran in 2018, most notably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It sold to Netflix for $10 million, making it the biggest sale of any documentary, ever. Hulu just bought the Hillary documentary series, directed by Nanette Burstein. It will begin streaming on March 6. Then there is And She Could Be Next, made by a team of women of color, including directors Grace Lee and Marjan Safinia. The film features Stacey Abrams, Lucy McBath, Rashida Tlaib, and Veronica Escobar. It will be broadcast as a two-part miniseries on PBS this summer.
Represent is another film directed and produced by women—but, in this case, about women in the Midwest running for local office. It will air on PBS in October. Directed by Hillary Bachelder, Represent serves an especially useful purpose. By focusing on down-ballot races, which are less costly and daunting than running for Congress of state-wide office, the film provides a glimpse of a more accessible on-ramp for would-be politicians. What’s more, local politicians make concrete impacts on the communities they serve and learn the mechanics of governance. Those women will one day be able to make the jump to the big leagues if they want. In other words, when more women fill these roles, it creates a pipeline of qualified women to run for higher office.
Expect more films of this new genre to come to theaters—or Netflix accounts—near you. The upcoming documentary Surge, directed by Hannah Rosenzweig and Wendy Sachs, also extols the record number of first-time female candidates who ran for U.S. Congress in 2018 and who were looking, with palpable urgency, to flip their deeply red districts to blue. The film follows three diverse candidates, one from Texas, Illinois, and Indiana, through the general election. Two lost, but one of them, Lauren Underwood, won, becoming the youngest black woman elected to Congress.
Besides taking the audience closely through three different campaigns, Surge demands something pressing of its viewers—to sustain the momentum of 2018. The filmmakers recognize that there’s no greater starting point than to demonstrate how women can become active in politics, and even run themselves.
As women marched and sought office in unprecedented numbers following Trump’s election, these female directors and producers recognized a moment and held a mirror up to society. They memorialized the rise of women seeking positions of political power through their own unique cinematic lens, demystifying a formidable, unknown world.
This is, after all, part of the purpose of art: to alter our perceptions about the world and what is possible. That’s the virtue of providing an up-close and personal depiction of campaign life. In the process, the films offer female audience members secretly harboring political ambitions the reassurance they need.
Even more to their credit, the filmmakers ensured that their works weren’t merely a sales pitch to get more women to run for office. For instance, in Surge, the filmmakers expose the challenging aspects of running for office: the constant tedium of fundraising phone calls, strategically choosing a look for the campaign trail, the significant tax on one’s children or partners, putting on makeup in the car, the quest to come across as authentic, and the candidates’ resilient reactions to the nasty, uncomfortable attacks from their opponents.
These films should be required viewing at campaign schools and programs around the country for women looking to join the pipeline. More importantly, these films should be viewed as part of collegiate women’s studies programs and high school government curriculums, to instill in young women the possibility that they, too, can run for any office, even president.
It is precisely because Hillary Clinton suffered such a heart-wrenching defeat in 2016 that Americans are much more well-positioned to elect a female president in the relatively near future, even if not in 2020. Clinton’s loss forced women to think more about their role—or lack thereof—in America’s political landscape. In response, they have built up a deeper bench of women who are qualified and experienced to run for higher office, which is essential. Otherwise, there could be no viable path to voting a woman into the White House.
We have already seen results. The 2018 deluge of female candidates propelled forward a presidential primary field with the highest number of female candidates in American history. Meanwhile, 62 female candidates are running for a total of 29 Senate seats, and 584 women are running for 307 House seats across 46 states.
This robust, ever-growing pipeline remains a cause for celebration, even if we don’t end up with a female president in January 2021. More importantly, it gives us a reason to hope. We owe a debt of gratitude to the female filmmakers who have archived a national political awakening. Women contemplating their own aspirations now have a cinematic roadmap. They have the chance to see her, and then to be her.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-05--Super Tuesday Results Demonstrate That Caucuses Suppress the Vote

The good news coming out of Super Tuesday is that turnout went up significantly in several states .
For example : Roughly 1.3 million people , or 23 % of registered Democrats , cast a ballot in the Virginia contest Tuesday , nearly double the number of votes recorded in 2016 when 14 % of registered Democrats voted .
Tuesday ’ s participation also shattered records set in 2008 , when almost 1 million votes were cast and the turnout rate hit 20 % … And turnout was up by about 200,000 votes over 2016 in neighboring North Carolina , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage points… Voters in Texas also turned out in droves .
Results from 97 % of precincts show that nearly 1.9 million voters cast a ballot Tuesday , easily exceeding the 1.4 million total from the 2016 primary .
The good news for Joe Biden ’ s campaign is that the former vice president won all three of those states .
But as we look at the reasons for higher turnout on Tuesday , it is important to keep in mind that several factors might have contributed to the overall results .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reform Commission ’ s changes to the nomination process , the party adopted measures to discourage states from holding caucuses .
On Tuesday , four states that made the switch to primaries voted , and the results are clear .
In all four caucus-ditching states , turnout surged dramatically from 2016 to 2020 : * In Colorado , turnout more than sextupled from around 122,000 in 2016 , with all votes counted , to more than 755,000 in 2020 , with nearly 99 percent of precincts reporting .
* In Maine , turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on an estimate from Democratic officials , to more than 194,000 , with 90 percent of precincts reporting .
* In Minnesota , turnout nearly quadrupled from more than 205,000 , with all votes counted , to more than 745,000 , with more than 99 percent of precincts reporting .
* In Utah , turnout more than doubled from more than 77,000 , with all votes counted , to nearly 175,000 , with 99 percent of precincts reporting .
While the caveat that correlation does not prove causation is in order , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fodder for the case that caucuses suppress turnout .
Here is how Stacey Abrams , one of the most vocal opponents of voter suppression , put it : In 2016 , Sanders won all four of those states , while on Tuesday , he only carried two of them—Colorado and Utah .
The split , along with the fact that Sanders won Colorado by 12 points , indicates that the surge in voter participation wasn ’ t limited to one candidate in the race .
There are , however , some Sanders supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next few months , we will learn whether or not these kinds of results hold when four more states that switched from caucuses hold their primaries , including Washington , Idaho , Nebraska , and Hawaii .
Meanwhile , other than Iowa and Nevada , the two remaining states that will hold caucuses are North Dakota and Wyoming .
The decision about whether to hold caucuses or primaries is up to the states .
But as they did with the Unity Reform Commission , the DNC can pressure them to make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combined with these results , highlight why that is important .
At a minimum , the DNC should exclude states that hold caucuses from being among the first four to vote .
While celebrating the turnout surge we saw in some states on Tuesday , it is still worth noting that we have a long way to go when only 23 percent of registered Democrats in Virginia went to the polls .
Frankly , that is abysmal , so there ’ s still a lot of work to do .
That includes fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ championing proposals to increase participation .
But first , Democrats need to clean their own house and get rid of caucuses .

The good news coming out of Super Tuesday is that turnout went up significantly in several states. For example:
Roughly 1.3 million people, or 23% of registered Democrats, cast a ballot in the Virginia contest Tuesday, nearly double the number of votes recorded in 2016 when 14% of registered Democrats voted. Tuesday’s participation also shattered records set in 2008, when almost 1 million votes were cast and the turnout rate hit 20%… And turnout was up by about 200,000 votes over 2016 in neighboring North Carolina, where Biden easily won by roughly 20 percentage points… Voters in Texas also turned out in droves. Results from 97% of precincts show that nearly 1.9 million voters cast a ballot Tuesday, easily exceeding the 1.4 million total from the 2016 primary.
The good news for Joe Biden’s campaign is that the former vice president won all three of those states. But as we look at the reasons for higher turnout on Tuesday, it is important to keep in mind that several factors might have contributed to the overall results.
As part of the DNC’s Unity Reform Commission’s changes to the nomination process, the party adopted measures to discourage states from holding caucuses. On Tuesday, four states that made the switch to primaries voted, and the results are clear.
In all four caucus-ditching states, turnout surged dramatically from 2016 to 2020: * In Colorado, turnout more than sextupled from around 122,000 in 2016, with all votes counted, to more than 755,000 in 2020, with nearly 99 percent of precincts reporting. * In Maine, turnout more than quadrupled from nearly 47,000, based on an estimate from Democratic officials, to more than 194,000, with 90 percent of precincts reporting. * In Minnesota, turnout nearly quadrupled from more than 205,000, with all votes counted, to more than 745,000, with more than 99 percent of precincts reporting. * In Utah, turnout more than doubled from more than 77,000, with all votes counted, to nearly 175,000, with 99 percent of precincts reporting.
While the caveat that correlation does not prove causation is in order, those results are astounding and certainly provide fodder for the case that caucuses suppress turnout. Here is how Stacey Abrams, one of the most vocal opponents of voter suppression, put it:
In 2016, Sanders won all four of those states, while on Tuesday, he only carried two of them—Colorado and Utah. The split, along with the fact that Sanders won Colorado by 12 points, indicates that the surge in voter participation wasn’t limited to one candidate in the race. There are, however, some Sanders supporters who continue to favor caucuses.
Over the next few months, we will learn whether or not these kinds of results hold when four more states that switched from caucuses hold their primaries, including Washington, Idaho, Nebraska, and Hawaii. Meanwhile, other than Iowa and Nevada, the two remaining states that will hold caucuses are North Dakota and Wyoming.
The decision about whether to hold caucuses or primaries is up to the states. But as they did with the Unity Reform Commission, the DNC can pressure them to make the change. The debacle in Iowa, combined with these results, highlight why that is important. At a minimum, the DNC should exclude states that hold caucuses from being among the first four to vote.
While celebrating the turnout surge we saw in some states on Tuesday, it is still worth noting that we have a long way to go when only 23 percent of registered Democrats in Virginia went to the polls. Frankly, that is abysmal, so there’s still a lot of work to do. That includes fighting any effort to suppress the vote while championing proposals to increase participation. But first, Democrats need to clean their own house and get rid of caucuses.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-05--The Electorate Is More Volatile Than People Suspect

There is a general consensus , bolstered by the steadiness of President Trump ’ s approval numbers throughout his entire tenure in office , that the country is mostly locked in and entrenched , with few undecided voters .
This might be true if we ’ re talking only about the red/blue divide , but it certainly hasn ’ t been true in the Democratic primaries .
The massive swing to Joe Biden after his victory in South Carolina and subsequent endorsements by Pete Buttigieg , Amy Klobuchar and Beto O ’ Rourke was stronger than even the most optimistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , the safest observation right now about the Democratic electorate is that they are uncertain about what they want and who they should support .
On the fringes of the party , it ’ s hard to even be confident that they ’ re totally committed to voting against Trump or voting at all .
As for true independents , the Democratic Party establishment certainly believes that a lot can hinge on whether the nominee is Biden or Sanders .
Particularly with respect to affluent suburbanites who have supported both Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s a belief that Biden will snatch them up while Sanders will drive them away .
Likewise , among Sanders ’ supporters , it ’ s an article of faith that the youth vote will not turn out for Biden and he ’ ll have trouble exciting the base .
I believe these are safer assumptions , on both sides , than the idea that the country is locked in an immutable partisan standoff .
I truly believe that the November election is not only up for grabs but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late and possibly dramatic swing in either direction .
For this reason , I don ’ t put a lot of faith in polls .
I probably wouldn ’ t anyway after witnessing Trump ’ s stunning and unpredicted victory in 2016 , but it ’ s not the inherent unreliability of polls that informs me here , but rather the example of what we just witnessed with Biden prior to Super Tuesday .
Having said that , the Democrats look like they ’ re currently in a pretty good position .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy Polling which just found the party leading in the Senate races in Arizona , Colorado , North Carolina , and Maine .
They also found both Biden and Sanders ahead in Maine by 10 points , and Biden leading in Arizona by one , while Sanders trails by one .
For context , Arizona has 11 Electoral College votes while Wisconsin only has 10 , so picking up Arizona could more than compensate for a second loss in the Badger State .
Meanwhile , if the Democrats really do carry those four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ll have 50-50 control of the Senate even if they lose Sen. Doug Jones ’ s Alabama seat .
This is because the sitting vice-president breaks ties in the Senate .
Of course , one thing that ’ s notable about these PPP polls is that there ’ s virtually no difference in how Biden and Sanders perform against Trump .
One can conjecture in two directions on this .
Either it makes no difference who the Democrats ’ nominate and this election will be a pure referendum on Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different coalitions that are somehow almost exactly equivalent in how many votes they can produce .
I have trouble subscribing to either of those theories , however , and I suspect that my initial theory is more accurate .
I think this election will be more volatile than people expect , and that it has the potential to break hard in one direction or the other , possibly at the last moment .

There is a general consensus, bolstered by the steadiness of President Trump’s approval numbers throughout his entire tenure in office, that the country is mostly locked in and entrenched, with few undecided voters. This might be true if we’re talking only about the red/blue divide, but it certainly hasn’t been true in the Democratic primaries.
The massive swing to Joe Biden after his victory in South Carolina and subsequent endorsements by Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Beto O’Rourke was stronger than even the most optimistic Biden partisan was willing to predict. In fact, the safest observation right now about the Democratic electorate is that they are uncertain about what they want and who they should support. On the fringes of the party, it’s hard to even be confident that they’re totally committed to voting against Trump or voting at all.
As for true independents, the Democratic Party establishment certainly believes that a lot can hinge on whether the nominee is Biden or Sanders. Particularly with respect to affluent suburbanites who have supported both Bush and Obama or both Romney and Clinton, there’s a belief that Biden will snatch them up while Sanders will drive them away. Likewise, among Sanders’ supporters, it’s an article of faith that the youth vote will not turn out for Biden and he’ll have trouble exciting the base.
I believe these are safer assumptions, on both sides, than the idea that the country is locked in an immutable partisan standoff. I truly believe that the November election is not only up for grabs but that the result could be decided by a late and possibly dramatic swing in either direction.
For this reason, I don’t put a lot of faith in polls. I probably wouldn’t anyway after witnessing Trump’s stunning and unpredicted victory in 2016, but it’s not the inherent unreliability of polls that informs me here, but rather the example of what we just witnessed with Biden prior to Super Tuesday.
Having said that, the Democrats look like they’re currently in a pretty good position. An example from today is provided by Public Policy Polling which just found the party leading in the Senate races in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, and Maine. They also found both Biden and Sanders ahead in Maine by 10 points, and Biden leading in Arizona by one, while Sanders trails by one.
For context, Arizona has 11 Electoral College votes while Wisconsin only has 10, so picking up Arizona could more than compensate for a second loss in the Badger State. Meanwhile, if the Democrats really do carry those four Senate races and capture the presidency, they’ll have 50-50 control of the Senate even if they lose Sen. Doug Jones’s Alabama seat. This is because the sitting vice-president breaks ties in the Senate.
Of course, one thing that’s notable about these PPP polls is that there’s virtually no difference in how Biden and Sanders perform against Trump. One can conjecture in two directions on this. Either it makes no difference who the Democrats’ nominate and this election will be a pure referendum on Trump, or Biden and Sanders will assemble vastly different coalitions that are somehow almost exactly equivalent in how many votes they can produce.
I have trouble subscribing to either of those theories, however, and I suspect that my initial theory is more accurate. I think this election will be more volatile than people expect, and that it has the potential to break hard in one direction or the other, possibly at the last moment.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-06--Under a Democratic President, McConnell Vows a Return to Total Obstruction

If a Democrat wins the presidential election in November , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already promised what he ’ ll do .
“ If I ’ m still the majority leader in the Senate think of me as the Grim Reaper .
None of that stuff is going to pass , ” McConnell said while speaking to community leaders in Owensboro , Ky. McConnell noted that if Republicans win back the House or President Trump wins reelection “ that takes care of it.
” But he pledged that even if Republicans lose the White House , he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block progressive proposals… “ I guarantee you that if I ’ m the last man standing and I ’ m still the majority leader , it ain ’ t happening .
I can promise you , ” McConnell added .
Just as in 2010 , when McConnell said that his number one priority was to make sure that Obama was a one-term president , even as the country was struggling to recover from the Great Recession , he is now vowing to obstruct whatever a Democratic president might try to accomplish .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now on record about his intentions .
Nothing will happen on any of the issues that are of concern to Americans as long as McConnell is the Republican leader in the Senate .
During the Democratic debates , I was tempted to throw something at the TV screen when candidates talked about how they ’ d deal with McConnell if they were elected president .
That is the wrong answer .
The majority leader is up for re-election this November and Democrats need to prioritize making him a six-term senator ( McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1984 , 36 years ago ) .
While the Kentucky primary isn ’ t until May 19th , McConnell ’ s most likely opponent is Amy McGrath , in case you ’ d like to make that a personal priority .
While defeating the man who , as Bob Moser wrote , “ sold America with his scorched-earth politics , ” needs to be a priority , it won ’ t be enough .
If Republicans maintain a majority in the Senate , they ’ ll simply choose someone else to follow in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s where the kind of news we just heard from Public Policy Polling is so encouraging .
There was also some good news from Montana on Wednesday .
Gov .
Steve Bullock of Montana is poised to reverse himself and run for the Senate , according to three Democratic officials , a decision that would hand the party a coveted recruit who could help reclaim a majority in the chamber .
After months of insisting he would not challenge Senator Steve Daines , Mr. Bullock , who ran for president last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is now inclined to run in what would immediately become one of the marquee Senate races of 2020 .
That could ultimately pit the current governor of Montana against Trump-wannabe Senator Steve Daines in a race that Democrats believe would at least be competitive .
Stopping Mitch McConnell is a two-stage process .
Voters need to : ( 1 ) elect Amy McGrath to be the next senator from Kentucky , and ( 2 ) ensure that Democrats win a Senate majority .
What it all comes down to is taking the @ @ @ @ @ @

If a Democrat wins the presidential election in November, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already promised what he’ll do.
“If I’m still the majority leader in the Senate think of me as the Grim Reaper. None of that stuff is going to pass,” McConnell said while speaking to community leaders in Owensboro, Ky. McConnell noted that if Republicans win back the House or President Trump wins reelection “that takes care of it.” But he pledged that even if Republicans lose the White House, he would use his position as majority leader to block progressive proposals… “I guarantee you that if I’m the last man standing and I’m still the majority leader, it ain’t happening. I can promise you,” McConnell added.
Just as in 2010, when McConnell said that his number one priority was to make sure that Obama was a one-term president—even as the country was struggling to recover from the Great Recession—he is now vowing to obstruct whatever a Democratic president might try to accomplish. That’s nothing new, but he is now on record about his intentions. Nothing will happen on any of the issues that are of concern to Americans as long as McConnell is the Republican leader in the Senate.
During the Democratic debates, I was tempted to throw something at the TV screen when candidates talked about how they’d deal with McConnell if they were elected president. That is the wrong answer. The majority leader is up for re-election this November and Democrats need to prioritize making him a six-term senator (McConnell was first elected to the senate in 1984, 36 years ago). While the Kentucky primary isn’t until May 19th, McConnell’s most likely opponent is Amy McGrath, in case you’d like to make that a personal priority.
While defeating the man who, as Bob Moser wrote, “sold America with his scorched-earth politics,” needs to be a priority, it won’t be enough. If Republicans maintain a majority in the Senate, they’ll simply choose someone else to follow in McConnell’s footsteps. That’s where the kind of news we just heard from Public Policy Polling is so encouraging.
New PPP polls find Sara Gideon leading Susan Collins 47-43 in the Maine Senate race and Mark Kelly leading Martha McSally 47-42 in the Arizona Senate race. Additionally a PPP poll for a private client last week found Cal Cunningham leading Thom Tillis 46-41 in the North Carolina Senate race, and when PPP last polled the Colorado Senate race John Hickenlooper led Cory Gardner 51-38. This makes four Republican held US Senate seats where PPP has found Democratic challengers with at least a 4 point lead.
There was also some good news from Montana on Wednesday.
Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana is poised to reverse himself and run for the Senate, according to three Democratic officials, a decision that would hand the party a coveted recruit who could help reclaim a majority in the chamber. After months of insisting he would not challenge Senator Steve Daines, Mr. Bullock, who ran for president last year, has told Democrats in the last week he is now inclined to run in what would immediately become one of the marquee Senate races of 2020.
That could ultimately pit the current governor of Montana against Trump-wannabe Senator Steve Daines in a race that Democrats believe would at least be competitive.
Stopping Mitch McConnell is a two-stage process. Voters need to: (1) elect Amy McGrath to be the next senator from Kentucky, and (2) ensure that Democrats win a Senate majority. What it all comes down to is taking the advice of Senator Brian Schatz.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-06--Donald Trump’s War on Food

Donald Trump’s War on Food

President Donald Trump ’ s approach to immigration policy—particularly to legal immigration–stands in between you and your favorite burger .
Last year , the administration announced the United States would resettle a maximum of 18,000 refugees over the course of fiscal year 2020 , the lowest limit since the program started four decades ago and a 40 percent drop from 2019 .
Then , in January , the administration expanded the travel ban to suspend immigrant visas for people from Eritrea , Myanmar , Kyrgyzstan , and Nigeria , and to restrict diversity visas for citizens of Sudan and Tanzania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to build a “ virtual wall ” that keeps newcomers out of the country — will intensify an already significant drop in legal immigration : 940,877 people obtained lawful permanent residence in fiscal year 2018 , compared to 1,063,280 in fiscal year 2016 , an 11.5 percent decrease .
So , what do hamburgers have to do with this ?
A lot , it turns out .
More often than not , immigrants are the conduit between the lettuce in the field , the cow in the pasture , and that burger on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on farms in California and Idaho , and in beef-processing factories in Nebraska .
In many cases , they ’ re the ones picking , processing , and preparing your food , and ultimately delivering it to your table .
In fact , almost three-quarters of farmworkers are foreign-born .
Half of the workers on dairy farms are immigrants—another important consideration if you like cheese on your patty .
Earlier this year , I was in Storm Lake , Iowa—population 13,000 .
I had the opportunity to sit with staff at the Tyson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world .
One of the workers , Abel Saengchanpheng , came there as a Laotian refugee and was born in a camp in Thailand .
Along with his Hispanic , Asian , African , and white co-workers , Abel makes Storm Lake—a town where 29 percent of residents are foreign-born—a stronger community .
Downtown Storm Lake thrives because of Latino-owned stores like the Better Day Café and , as a result , local leadership addresses the best of all problems facing rural America : growth .
If you take immigrants and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ town starts to suffer .
Case in point : Look at the Tyson Fresh Meats plant in Perry , Iowa—population 7,500 .
Once a thriving workplace , it might not meet demand now due to a shortage of available workers , according to local press reports .
Refugees from Eritrea and Myanmar—two countries included in Trump ’ s new entry ban—are frequent hires at Tyson ’ s Perry plant .
Of the 1,368 workers Tyson employs there , 800 arrived as refugees .
In essence , we see a tale of two towns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our tables : One is thriving because of a diversity of foreign-born labor .
The other town is worried about its future because its pipeline of foreign-born talent has been shut down by the Trump administration .
In Iowa alone , refugee- and immigrant-owned businesses contribute $ 4 billion to the state every year , and immigrant households pay nearly $ 522 million in local and state taxes .
These hardworking people in the meatpacking , agricultural , manufacturing , and other industries stem the tide of population loss , keeping communities afloat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iowa and other states .
That matters right now , as cities attract more and more people from the heartland—hastening a demographic crisis in rural America .
For instance , in Mount Pleasant , Iowa , where Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested dozens of undocumented immigrants in 2018 , companies are struggling to hire .
Two states away , in Indiana , immigrants are responsible for 25 percent of the state ’ s population growth since 2000 .
In short , the strength and dynamism that immigrants and refugees bring to rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Which brings us back to your hamburger .
A new MSNBC Show , “ What ’ s Eating America ” —executive produced by chef and humanitarian José Andrés—explores “ immigration , the food industry , and more by examining the stories of people working to raise , process , and harvest what we eat.
” As Andrés explains , many Americans , including our president , don ’ t seem to understand that immigrants and refugees are integral to our food system .
Every time Trump takes action to limit immigration or makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners and CEOs at food processing plants hear the message .
They prepare for a shrinking workforce , lowered production targets , and slimmer profits .
The reality , however , is what President Trump ’ s acting chief of staff , Mick Mulvaney , recently admitted : Our country is “ desperate ” for immigrants to “ fuel economic growth.
” When it comes to the food we eat , immigrants aren ’ t a part of the equation in the United States—they are the equation .

President Donald Trump’s approach to immigration policy—particularly to legal immigration–stands in between you and your favorite burger.
Last year, the administration announced the United States would resettle a maximum of 18,000 refugees over the course of fiscal year 2020, the lowest limit since the program started four decades ago and a 40 percent drop from 2019. Then, in January, the administration expanded the travel ban to suspend immigrant visas for people from Eritrea, Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, and Nigeria, and to restrict diversity visas for citizens of Sudan and Tanzania.
These actions—coupled with myriad other moves to build a “virtual wall” that keeps newcomers out of the country — will intensify an already significant drop in legal immigration: 940,877 people obtained lawful permanent residence in fiscal year 2018, compared to 1,063,280 in fiscal year 2016, an 11.5 percent decrease.
So, what do hamburgers have to do with this? A lot, it turns out.
More often than not, immigrants are the conduit between the lettuce in the field, the cow in the pasture, and that burger on your plate. They are crucial contributors on farms in California and Idaho, and in beef-processing factories in Nebraska. In many cases, they’re the ones picking, processing, and preparing your food, and ultimately delivering it to your table. In fact, almost three-quarters of farmworkers are foreign-born. Half of the workers on dairy farms are immigrants—another important consideration if you like cheese on your patty.
Earlier this year, I was in Storm Lake, Iowa—population 13,000. I had the opportunity to sit with staff at the Tyson plant that processes pigs for markets around the world. One of the workers, Abel Saengchanpheng, came there as a Laotian refugee and was born in a camp in Thailand. Along with his Hispanic, Asian, African, and white co-workers, Abel makes Storm Lake—a town where 29 percent of residents are foreign-born—a stronger community. Downtown Storm Lake thrives because of Latino-owned stores like the Better Day Café and, as a result, local leadership addresses the best of all problems facing rural America: growth. If you take immigrants and their families out of the equation, the town starts to suffer.
Case in point: Look at the Tyson Fresh Meats plant in Perry, Iowa—population 7,500. Once a thriving workplace, it might not meet demand now due to a shortage of available workers, according to local press reports. Refugees from Eritrea and Myanmar—two countries included in Trump’s new entry ban—are frequent hires at Tyson’s Perry plant. Of the 1,368 workers Tyson employs there, 800 arrived as refugees.
In essence, we see a tale of two towns in rural America, putting food on our tables: One is thriving because of a diversity of foreign-born labor. The other town is worried about its future because its pipeline of foreign-born talent has been shut down by the Trump administration.
In Iowa alone, refugee- and immigrant-owned businesses contribute $4 billion to the state every year, and immigrant households pay nearly $522 million in local and state taxes. These hardworking people in the meatpacking, agricultural, manufacturing, and other industries stem the tide of population loss, keeping communities afloat, and add to the cultural vitality of Iowa and other states.
That matters right now, as cities attract more and more people from the heartland—hastening a demographic crisis in rural America. For instance, in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested dozens of undocumented immigrants in 2018, companies are struggling to hire. Two states away, in Indiana, immigrants are responsible for 25 percent of the state’s population growth since 2000.
In short, the strength and dynamism that immigrants and refugees bring to rural America—and our agricultural sector—is at risk.
Which brings us back to your hamburger.
A new MSNBC Show, “What’s Eating America”—executive produced by chef and humanitarian José Andrés—explores “immigration, the food industry, and more by examining the stories of people working to raise, process, and harvest what we eat.” As Andrés explains, many Americans, including our president, don’t seem to understand that immigrants and refugees are integral to our food system.
Every time Trump takes action to limit immigration or makes a derogatory comment about immigrants, farm owners and CEOs at food processing plants hear the message. They prepare for a shrinking workforce, lowered production targets, and slimmer profits.
The reality, however, is what President Trump’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, recently admitted: Our country is “desperate” for immigrants to “fuel economic growth.” When it comes to the food we eat, immigrants aren’t a part of the equation in the United States—they are the equation.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-06--Biden and Sanders Supporters are from Mars and Venus

There ’ s a very interesting split on the left right now between groups that have everything to lose but completely different theories on how to protect themselves .
As Jenna Johnson , Matt Viser , and Chelsea Janes report in the Washington Post and Maya Gay editorializes in the New York Times , black voters in the South feel a sense of urgency about defeating Donald Trump because they see his reelection as a direct threat to everything they accomplished in the Civil Rights Era and since .
On the flip side are the multiracial millennials who make up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Tim Alberta writes for Politico Magazine , they ’ re rooting hard for Bernie Sanders to win the presidency , but their focus is more on local organizing and the long haul .
On the whole , they no longer expect one person or one election to solve the problems they face .
They ’ re not committed to voting against Donald Trump and generally see no reason to support Joe Biden .
The cultural difference was evident during the pre-Super Tuesday commemoration of the 1965 Bloody Sunday march across the Edmund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All the major Democratic presidential candidates were there , with the exception of Bernie Sanders .
At a service at the historic Brown Chapel AME Church , Biden was welcomed like a close friend and given a seat of honor on the dais .
[ Michael ] Bloomberg , who spent millions on advertising and organizing in the state , sat in the first pew and was invited to address the congregation .
As he did so , 10 people stood and turned their backs in silent protest of his past police policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to declare that black voters “ are not looking for better slave masters , we are looking for freedom.
” Then Biden got up to speak and directly addressed Sharpton ’ s words .
“ Where I come from , we ’ re not looking for masters .
We ’ re looking for servants .
That ’ s how I was raised , ” Biden said .
“ So don ’ t get confused , old buddy .
I was raised to be a servant .
Not a master.
” After the service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bridge just as black activists had done 55 years earlier .
“ We must go out and vote like we ’ ve never , ever voted before , ” said Rep. John Lewis ( D-Ga. ) , whose skull was fractured in the 1965 march and who recently announced he has advanced cancer .
“ And help redeem the soul of America.
” This was a call for mass voter participation with the very soul and character of the nation on the line .
It was also a demonstration of how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No-one turned their back on him over his authorship of a crime bill and support for a Drug War that resulted in a large spike of black incarceration .
None of the critiques the left throws at Biden about his record on race had any resonance with the crowd .
That kind of cool reception was left for Michael Bloomberg who clearly had not established a level of trust that could grant him universal respect .
There ’ s been a lot of debate over what Bernie Sanders did and did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was at Martin Luther King Jr. ’ s March on Washington in 1963 where the reverend delivered his “ I Have a Dream ” speech .
He was active with CORE in the Chicago area .
He has nothing to apologize for , but he didn ’ t see it as important to be in Selma with the other candidates in 2020 and traveled to a rally in Los Angeles instead .
Perhaps that ’ s because , within his cultural bubble , there ’ s a completely different emphasis on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the South Carolina primary , Tim Alberta joined the Columbus , Ohio , chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America for a debate party at a local bar .
Yet , when the debate started , the sound remained muted and no one seemed to be paying the slightest attention .
Initially perplexed , Alberta gradually realized that the DSA crowd simply wasn ’ t that invested in seeing Sanders win the presidency .
This was the high point of Sanders ’ campaign and he appeared to be on the cusp of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed concerned that something might happen in the debate to derail their champion .
As he interviewed various attendees , he discovered that few of them were willing to even contemplate voting for someone other than Sanders .
A couple of people said they ’ d settle for Elizabeth Warren but no one else .
But , more than that , he realized that they didn ’ t see a Sanders win as particularly critical to the future success of their movement .
The view that it doesn ’ t matter if Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 is very distant from John Lewis ’ s urgent call to redeem the soul of America by voting like we ’ ve never voted before .
But the problems of millennials are pressing and immediate .
Many are crushed under massive student debt and living in a gig economy with stagnant wages and little hope of crafting the same comfortable middle class lives their parents and grandparents enjoyed .
There ’ s a certain realism that this can not be fixed overnight or through Bernie Sanders alone .
For people like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeating Donald Trump is not only of secondary importance , it ’ s not really a solution for anything .
As pressing as their concerns may be , they are patient and have no expectations that things will improve in the near future .
Maybe the biggest distinction between the Democratic Socialists and the congregants of Brown Chapel AME Church is in their view of Barack Obama .
Of course , how you feel about Barack Obama can have a lot to do with how you feel about Joe Biden .
When Jim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was putting his faith in him : There are a lot of people writing about why the black community in the South rallied around Joe Biden .
Why didn ’ t they give more support to Elizabeth Warren , for example , who didn ’ t come with some of Biden ’ s baggage on drugs and crime and busing and cozying up to segregationist senators ?
But it ’ s not all about defensive voting .
It ’ s not just the belief that Sanders is too radical or that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s about trust .
Obama trusts Biden .
Biden was his loyal lieutenant .
Biden doesn ’ t run away from Obama ’ s record .
These are all just as important as the belief that Biden can win .
They know him and he knows them , and they expect his presidency to look a lot like a third-term for Obama .
If a third Obama term doesn ’ t sound good to you , then perhaps you ’ ll find reasons to support a different candidate .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black southerners to choose Sanders because he supposedly has a better record on issues of importance to the community when he can ’ t even show up in Selma .
It ’ s downright insulting to suggest that they ’ re voting against their best interests , as if they ’ re too stupid to know who they trust .
One thing we know for certain .
The movement that was led by John Lewis and Jim Clyburn was very much about winning the right to vote .
They ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The DSA folks in Columbus probably will not .

There’s a very interesting split on the left right now between groups that have everything to lose but completely different theories on how to protect themselves.
As Jenna Johnson, Matt Viser, and Chelsea Janes report in the Washington Post and Maya Gay editorializes in the New York Times, black voters in the South feel a sense of urgency about defeating Donald Trump because they see his reelection as a direct threat to everything they accomplished in the Civil Rights Era and since. On the flip side are the multiracial millennials who make up the Democratic Socialists of America crowd. As Tim Alberta writes for Politico Magazine, they’re rooting hard for Bernie Sanders to win the presidency, but their focus is more on local organizing and the long haul. On the whole, they no longer expect one person or one election to solve the problems they face. They’re not committed to voting against Donald Trump and generally see no reason to support Joe Biden.
The cultural difference was evident during the pre-Super Tuesday commemoration of the 1965 Bloody Sunday march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. All the major Democratic presidential candidates were there, with the exception of Bernie Sanders.
At a service at the historic Brown Chapel AME Church, Biden was welcomed like a close friend and given a seat of honor on the dais. [Michael] Bloomberg, who spent millions on advertising and organizing in the state, sat in the first pew and was invited to address the congregation. As he did so, 10 people stood and turned their backs in silent protest of his past police policies. The Rev. Al Sharpton rose to declare that black voters “are not looking for better slave masters, we are looking for freedom.” Then Biden got up to speak and directly addressed Sharpton’s words. “Where I come from, we’re not looking for masters. We’re looking for servants. That’s how I was raised,” Biden said. “So don’t get confused, old buddy. I was raised to be a servant. Not a master.” After the service, several candidates gathered to march across the bridge just as black activists had done 55 years earlier. “We must go out and vote like we’ve never, ever voted before,” said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), whose skull was fractured in the 1965 march and who recently announced he has advanced cancer. “And help redeem the soul of America.”
This was a call for mass voter participation with the very soul and character of the nation on the line. It was also a demonstration of how the southern black community feels about Joe Biden. No-one turned their back on him over his authorship of a crime bill and support for a Drug War that resulted in a large spike of black incarceration. None of the critiques the left throws at Biden about his record on race had any resonance with the crowd. That kind of cool reception was left for Michael Bloomberg who clearly had not established a level of trust that could grant him universal respect.
There’s been a lot of debate over what Bernie Sanders did and did not do during the Civil Rights Era. He was at Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington in 1963 where the reverend delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech. He was active with CORE in the Chicago area. He has nothing to apologize for, but he didn’t see it as important to be in Selma with the other candidates in 2020 and traveled to a rally in Los Angeles instead. Perhaps that’s because, within his cultural bubble, there’s a completely different emphasis on the crisis facing America.
On the Tuesday before the South Carolina primary, Tim Alberta joined the Columbus, Ohio, chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America for a debate party at a local bar. Yet, when the debate started, the sound remained muted and no one seemed to be paying the slightest attention. Initially perplexed, Alberta gradually realized that the DSA crowd simply wasn’t that invested in seeing Sanders win the presidency. This was the high point of Sanders’ campaign and he appeared to be on the cusp of securing the nomination, but no one seemed concerned that something might happen in the debate to derail their champion.
As he interviewed various attendees, he discovered that few of them were willing to even contemplate voting for someone other than Sanders. A couple of people said they’d settle for Elizabeth Warren but no one else. But, more than that, he realized that they didn’t see a Sanders win as particularly critical to the future success of their movement.
“The DSA has grown 10-fold since Bernie’s campaign in 2016. And it’s going to keep growing regardless of what happens in 2020,” [33-year-old paralegal, Kristin] Porter said. “That’s the difference between Obama and Bernie — this isn’t about the success of one person, it’s about the success of a movement. Bernie is building a movement that will be able to take power back. It’s just a matter of time.” …“It doesn’t matter whether he wins or not,” [21-year-old Hunter] Kauffman said of Sanders. “He has put forth these big ideas, exposing them to people who hadn’t heard about them before. And now we need to move them forward.”
The view that it doesn’t matter if Sanders (or any other Democrat) wins in 2020 is very distant from John Lewis’s urgent call to redeem the soul of America by voting like we’ve never voted before. But the problems of millennials are pressing and immediate. Many are crushed under massive student debt and living in a gig economy with stagnant wages and little hope of crafting the same comfortable middle class lives their parents and grandparents enjoyed.
“My biggest fear is I’ll disappoint my parents. Everything is so commoditized in America, I’m afraid I won’t be able to support them, to pay them back for everything they’ve done for me,” [Nikki Velamakanni, an Ohio State sophomore studying neuroscience and pre-law] said. “And I’m afraid my family back home will think I’m a failure because of it.” CONNOR MCCULLOCH, a 21-year-old aerospace engineering student, said he could relate. Raised by a single mother who worked 60-hour weeks for Southwest Airlines—and still does—McCulloch feels enormous pressure to make enough money not only to pay off his student loans, but to help his mom retire with security. “I read about these people who spend decades trying to pay off student loans. What would I do if that were me?” he asked. “That’s why I majored in aerospace, because hopefully it lands a high-paying job.”
There’s a certain realism that this cannot be fixed overnight or through Bernie Sanders alone.
In addition to canceling student debt, McCulloch cares passionately about Medicare for All and universal childcare. Not long ago, he noted, these ideas were considered fringe. And while he isn’t optimistic about a President Sanders implementing them—“I’m concerned about any Democrat’s ability to pass these things into law”—McCulloch, who has never voted in a presidential election, takes a much longer view. “People have tried to delegitimize these ideas with the label ‘socialist.’ But it’s not going to work for much longer; it’s like a red-scare tactic that loses its effectiveness over time,” he said.
For people like Kauffman, Velamakanni, and McCulloch, defeating Donald Trump is not only of secondary importance, it’s not really a solution for anything.
“I listen to people talking about the terrible things Trump has done, at the Supreme Court and the Mexican border and everywhere else, and they think impeachment is going solve all our problems. It’s like, no, that really doesn’t solve any of our problems.”
As pressing as their concerns may be, they are patient and have no expectations that things will improve in the near future.
Maybe the biggest distinction between the Democratic Socialists and the congregants of Brown Chapel AME Church is in their view of Barack Obama.
[Sythan] Pok became enamored of Obama in 2008, believing the problems he saw would finally be addressed by the progressive young president. When they weren’t—at least to his satisfaction—Pok became deeply cynical. “Obama’s failures are the reason for where I’m at with my beliefs now,” he said. Today, Pok isn’t putting his faith in a political figure. He supports Sanders but is skeptical that a president, any president, can do much to affect his life. “That’s why I’m here,” he said, motioning toward the DSA allies behind him.
Of course, how you feel about Barack Obama can have a lot to do with how you feel about Joe Biden. When Jim Clyburn endorsed Biden, he explained why he was putting his faith in him:
“As I stand before you today I am fearful of the future of this country. I’m fearful for my daughters and their futures, and their children, and their children’s futures.” Mr. Clyburn said he was sure Mr. Biden was the right choice. “I know Joe. We know Joe. But most importantly, Joe knows us.”
There are a lot of people writing about why the black community in the South rallied around Joe Biden. Why didn’t they give more support to Elizabeth Warren, for example, who didn’t come with some of Biden’s baggage on drugs and crime and busing and cozying up to segregationist senators? But it’s not all about defensive voting. It’s not just the belief that Sanders is too radical or that a woman can’t beat Trump.
It’s about trust. Obama trusts Biden. Biden was his loyal lieutenant. Biden doesn’t run away from Obama’s record. These are all just as important as the belief that Biden can win. They know him and he knows them, and they expect his presidency to look a lot like a third-term for Obama.
If a third Obama term doesn’t sound good to you, then perhaps you’ll find reasons to support a different candidate. But it’s asking a lot to expect black southerners to choose Sanders because he supposedly has a better record on issues of importance to the community when he can’t even show up in Selma. It’s downright insulting to suggest that they’re voting against their best interests, as if they’re too stupid to know who they trust.
One thing we know for certain. The movement that was led by John Lewis and Jim Clyburn was very much about winning the right to vote. They’re going to turn up to vote Trump out. The DSA folks in Columbus probably will not.