A robust Democratic majority

It may not be possible.

Democrats may be doomed to be the party of frustration, not the party of progress and change.

There is a split within the American left. There is frustration over unresolved problems in America ignored by the comfortable elites of both parties.  Matthew Taibbi wrote about it. Click Here.  It is real. I saw it during my political travel last cycle, when I predicted a Trump victory. Trump channelled populism.

I recommend people stop here and read the Taibbi article.

Gallup and other polls show deep dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, which persisted during Bush, Obama, and continues. It is bi-partisan, which is why there is opportunity for both left populism and right populism--and centrism as well.  Hillary Clinton represented left centrism and she won slightly over half the votes.

That is why there is a split in the Democratic voter base.

Wrong Track: Dissatisfied America. 

There may not be a route to what the Democratic activist base wants: a progressive Democratic president and a robust Democratic majority to carry out a progressive agenda.

Democrats on the left think Bernie Sanders should have won and would have won had he been nominated. They won't be pushovers this time. They want a populist left nominee who embraces populist economics--tax the rich, Medicare for All, $15 minimum wage--and one who recognizes the identity elements of the party and who embraces the resentments of the frustrated activist constituencies: The MeToo feminists, Black Lives Matter blacks, Latino immigration activists,The LGBTQ community. 

Such a candidate may emerge. Possibly it will be Sanders, but he is old and male and white, and many think shopworn.  There is such a candidate, an unavailable one: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She gets media attention in part because she pulls together that mix. AOC is the telegenic, sassy template and avatar.

An AOC-compliant candidate might win the Democratic nomination general election, given the potential of Trump-fatigue and his unique strengths and weaknesses. Trump has a unique set of enemies. But an AOC-compliant Democratic Party will likely not lead to House and Senate wins in Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Florida, Colorado, Georgia and Texas. Democrats can and have won senate races in those states, and recently. 

Democrats who say well, "we cannot actually expect to win Texas," are identifying the problem and conceding defeat. Beto is young and exciting. Many Democrats who donated to him expected something like AOC, and instead they got a moderate, and he doesn't actually hate the fossil fuel industry. 

Well of course, which is why he nearly won in Texas.

Senator Jon Tester, Montana

The ideal Democrat for the activist progressive is two contradictory things. They want to win in places like Texas AND they want an AOC-compliant politician. 

Choose one.

Democrats can win in those states: Bob Kerrey, Tom Dashiell, Heidi Heidkamp, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Gary Hart, Sam Zell, Lloyd Benston. 

Democrats who win in places like Montana sometimes look and sound like Jon Tester. Tester would likely have a hard time winning a congressional seat in Queens. He farms. He drives a tractor. He slaughters his own beef. He is OK with sounding like a moderate, a centrist. Indeed, it is an essential element of his brand.

A robust majority for Democrats in the House and Senate does not happen by electing 55 or 60 US senators who look and sound like Bernie Sanders and AOC. Vermont and Queens are wonderful, special places, but what is possible in Burlington and Queens is not necessarily possible in Des Moines. A robust Democratic majority will happen when voters in Montana and Missouri and Florida and other red and purple states turn out for a Democrat.  

Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia

Voters on the progressive left can scorn and define such people as Democrats in Name Only, and they are doing so, but it dooms the presidential candidate either to losing the general election, or winning it and discovering he or she has a deeply hostile Congress.

Such a Senate refuses to take action on the president's Supreme Court nominations. Frustration. And then voters turn off, because, after all, they elected Obama and all they got was Obamacare and a conservative Supreme Court.

A Democratic president needs a robust majority to carry out the mission that progressives want. Democrats may want AOC, but they need Joe Manchin, too.

Green New Deal legislation

"Make polluters pay."

That is a nice, clear sentence and sentiment.  

Or maybe, "Make polluters pay us back" would be better.

Ocasio-Cortez. Unapologetic smackdown politics.

Simple works in political messaging. Simple means clear and decisive. Complications and nuance can come across as insincere. Trump understood and practiced this; Hillary did not.
Hillary was CSPAN. Trump was tabloid.

And lots of people like the fact that the nuance-complication people, the experts, don't like Trump, and he doesn't like them. Their mutual dislike proves that Trump is strong and steadfast.

Simple political messaging is not new with Trump. "Tippecanou and Tyler, too" is not deep policy analysis, but General William Harrison became famous for victory in the battle of Tippecanou against Shawnee Indian chief Tecumseh, and it worked as a slogan in a campaign song in 1840.  

"Remember the Maine" was a simple sentiment, undiminished by being false. People got the message: Spain injured us, so get revenge.

Simple works. Smackdown works. An ongoing premise of this blog is that the marginal voter knows at most seven things about a candidate. They vote on the basis of whether or not they feel the candidate is on their side. It makes Trump's vulgarity and narcissism irrelevant. A great many people think he is on their side, and they like it when he smacks down opponents.

The Green New Deal has great potential power as a message. People now remember FDR's New Deal favorably, and associate it with Social Security. It was bitterly contentious in the 1930's but rosy glasses have obscured this.

Trump, Fox, and the GOP are working right now to transform the Green New Deal message into a simple negative:  Ban cars and hamburgers, how crazy! Meanwhile, serious proposals are coming forward on behalf of the Green New Deal, fleshing it out from an aspiration to a program. 

Blog reader Wayne Taylor, a molecular biologist and now emeritus professor, wrote comments to previous posts, some of which I show below as a Guest Post. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H. R. 763) has support from Democrats and, as of today, one Republican, a Representative from the SW coast of Florida representing an upscale, environmentally conscious district that includes Coral Gables and Naples, Florida.

It is serious legislation, which collects a carbon emission tax and then rebates it per capita to the public. It attempts to price the externality of emissions, not to raise money. Carbon emitters create a cost bourn by the general public. Charge them for it, then rebate it back to everyone. The bill is CSPAN-serious, but it need not be described that way.

Make polluters pay. Pay us.

Guest Post by Wayne Taylor

Taylor

"The Green New Deal is an aspirational Progressive agenda that Repuglicans have accused would bankrupt our economy and ruin America. In fact, it is a wish list of goals for the energy transition that can save us from the ravages of global warming and over $40 Trillion in damages over 30 years, but only if we invest about $2 Trillion (2% of our GDP) to build the new solar and wind energy infrastructure. This would allow us to retool and retire the outmoded coal, oil, and gas energy factories. Such an energy transition would be regarded as an energy war for the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry. Since our lives and well-being depend upon making this economic revolution happen, we need to also engage in the energy war on the winning side of the future. Solar and Wind energy.

We in Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) now have a bill before Congress that will make the energy transition happen, called the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H.R. 763). It is now supported by many Congress People including our new Rep. Gil Cisneros (D, House Rep. Dist. 39, Fullerton, CA), who recently replaced Ed Royce (R), in the US House of Reps..  

The idea for the Energy Innovation act is simply to use the market mechanism to make energy polluters pay for use of the atmosphere as their "sewer" or smokestack. This law would work by the "Carbon fee and dividend" (CFD) mechanism, charging polluters who emit excess carbon dioxide to pay a tax at the mine or wellhead, at the increasing rate of about $10 per ton of CO2, increased $10 per year, emitted from the burning of coal, oil, or gas. The money collected by the federal govt. would all be put into a fund to be given back to taxpayer citizens as a Dividend. People would be able to use their monthly dividend (about $350 per month per family) to offset the increased prices for gasoline and all other products made from use of fossil fuel energy (nearly everything to start with). Other countries who do not have the CFD policy would be able to make petro-products more cheaply, but they would also be required to pay a tariff proportional to their CO2 footprint when these items are sold as imports into our country. 

Click for a detailed explanation of the bill

Modeling studies (RIMI) have shown that over 60% of families would get more monetary benefit from the CFD policy than they would need to pay from increased prices, so this is a progressive way to facilitate the energy transition using the market. As people put their money into buying cars and appliances etc. that are less carbon-intensive, the economy will favor energy sources like solar and wind which have no fee imposed. This policy is supported by Democrats and Repuglicans alike. This makes it politically feasible. We have no time to lose, so please call your US Rep., and tell them to support HR 763, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend act."

"I won. You're a sore loser."

Attorney General William Barr has a strategy: 

Grab the lead. 

Claim victory. 

Make the opponent try to reverse the public impression. 

Call them sore losers and cheats.

We have seen this before. 

It is dishonest and manipulative, but it works. The media and the public fall for it.

Remember November, 2000. Florida's electoral votes were in question in a dead heat election. Which counties needed a recount? Which absentee ballots should be counted? Which punch card holes were unmistakably punched? What is the deadline for counting ballots?

Each of these questions, and more, created recount results far greater than the 537 votes that decided the presidential election.

The Florida GOP took a position early and loudly. We won. Game over. You are trying to reverse the score. 

They labeled Gore and Leiberman "Sore Loserman."  

So when we had a moment of public disorder, the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot," when an organized group of Republican lawyers and campaign employees overwhelmed a Miami-Dade County elections office, demanding the recount be stopped, it seemed less like mob rule obstruction of orderly government and, perhaps, an assertion of fair play.  After all, Bush had already won, right? 

Meanwhile, the clock was ticking. Bush was ahead. The GOP presented and stuck to a story: we had already won. Done deal. Democrats had their story: we want to count the votes to see who won. 

Delays ran out the clock.

Demanded the Florida recount stop.

We are seeing a repeat of the 2000 playbook.

William Barr took whatever is in the Mueller report and summarized it in a way that allowed headlines saying Trump is not indictable. That was enough to grab the lead in the public understanding of the legality of Trump's behavior. 

Trump then used that lead to claim victory. "Total EXONERATION!"  Trump is seizing the moment. Trump tweets, tells Sean Hannity, and speaks at rallies. I won. The media calls it a "Victory lap" as he tells rallies he was totally and completely vindicated.  

Meanwhile, Democrats and the mainstream media have the weak position of catch-up and indecision and reversal. Trump claims he is certain he won. Democrats say we don't know what is in the Mueller report, they say. 

 "Read the report" is the modern version of "count the ballots."

Trump now calls for the investigation and prosecution of the people who had dared to investigate him. After all, he was obviously, completely, totally innocent, he says, so they couldn't simply have been doing their jobs; they were sore losers doing treason. 

Trump is cementing this perch of power. He is acting like a man with a mandate to govern boldly. He directed the Justice Department to change the government position on a court case on the ACA. Now the government favors full repeal of it. We don't fix Obamacare or defend the popular parts of it. We obliterate it.  Winners sow salt in the fields of losers.

William Barr will now make Democrats beg and wait, beg and wait, and then--like the slow drip of results from ballot counting in Florida, the information will come out. The longer it takes, the longer the Trump declaration of victory will settle in as the status quo. 

The frame has been set: Trump won. Shocking revelations, if they appear, will be understood as Democrats trying to change the result of a game already in the record books. 

The GOP had the votes in the Senate to confirm Barr, and the GOP played hardball with Barr in the role of team-mate, not umpire. Democrats got rolled, again.

"What is Peter Sage's Problem?!!!!

"What's the deal?  Is Peter dissing us?" 

Readers keep piling on. 

Gail writes, "This one from you, Peter, surprises me. I didn't expect it from you."

Two days ago this blog posted what I thought was a simple proposition. The American energy economy is in transition to non-carbon energy. The process is underway; it is not complete. 

In this multi-decade transition away from fossil fuels all Americans in fact use fossil fuels, conspicuously. I said it was morally inconsistent to shame the industries that produce products people use. The message is opposition and shame, not transition. The call is to "Divest!"  Money from energy companies is considered "dirty."  

And yet the candidates buy gasoline and use electricity generated by coal.

It is bad and dangerous politics, I argued.  People notice the inconsistency. It demonstrates inauthenticity, which we realize is disastrous politics, especially in this world of finger-pointing Trump, there to make harsh accusations of fraud. We saw this: Lyin' Ted. Crooked Hillary. Pocahontas. 

I can imagine the slogan: "Limousine New Deal--they fly, you walk."  I can imagine the photos of the campaign vehicles of candidates of fossil fuel company prohibitionists at gas pumps--labeled "Phony!" and spread on social media. I think a shaming, absolutist attitude toward fossil fuel companies will backfire.  

Lots of readers disagree.

Yesterday, Herb Rothschild said I conflated policy with necessary practice, and I should cool it. Today Thad Guyer teases me--and fellow Democrats. Guyer is an attorney with an international practice specializing in representing whistleblowing employees. His office is wherever his laptop computer is, and it currently is mostly in Vietnam.

Guyer

Guest Post by Thad Guyer:

"What is Peter Sage’s Problem?!?!!

Like most readers, I enjoy Peter's witty polemics, but what's up with him criticizing us? 

Hey, our honeymoon House majority quickly passed the Green New Deal "resolution" in which we boldly articulated our dreams for environmental utopia. And on the very day of Peter's sacrilege, our brave Democratic senators including both from Oregon courageously voted "present" when asked if they would follow the House lead. No way our senators were going to fall for a GOP “stunt” and vote for the Green New Deal.

Peter, the purpose of a "resolution" is not to actually do a thing other than, you know, tout our aspirations, to raise our virtue signaling flag high and proud on greenhouse gases. It’s like calorie counts posted at restaurant chains. We look at the menu item, demurely smile and say what the heck, and order it in spite of the calories. That’s what the Green New Deal is like. It’s not a law, it’s a “resolution”, it just signals what would be sort of nice to do, like avoiding the calories or extinction of species. We Democrats alone get the virtue of the Green New Deal and calorie counts, and but for critics like you, we could wake up every morning and feel that “virtue glow”.

Here are some factoids for you to consider in my demand for your apology to us:

1. Americans eat (and feed our livestock) a grossly disproportionate amount of the world’s food resources. We are the most obese population in world history, although it’s almost certainly Trump supporters who are the worst offenders. Now please pay attention here Peter, but part of the Affordable Care Act mandated the display of calorie counts for all big chain restaurants. But that law had absolutely nothing to do with us hogging the world food supply, or the colossal green house gases emitted in the production, packaging and transportation of that food. The calorie count law is just to help us eat less and reduce diabetes, heart disease, morbidity and health care costs. Democrats have never tried to pass any law that forbids us from pillaging global food resources in the most environmentally catastrophic ways.

2. Americans in deep blue states buy the most gas guzzling, carbon spewing cars in the world, but obviously Republicans in red states are the worst ones. Now still pay attention Peter, because our fuel efficiency laws originated having nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouse gases, but just with foreign oil dependency. Much later engine efficiency was mandated to burn fuel cleanly, but giant gas guzzling cars and trucks have remained an American birthright, and Democrats have never tried to pass a law against that. Indeed, the Green New Deal resolution does not even contain the terms “automobile” or “fuel efficiency”.

So there’s nothing hypocritical about Democrats hogging world food resources and driving SUVs to the restaurants to eat it while supporting-- with all our hearts-- the Affordable Care Act’s calorie count and the Green New Deal’s condemnation of fossil fuels. And while we may have bought petroleum stocks from brokers like you, you are the one who was selling them, and only the producers and sellers are guilty, not consumers like us. That is our rule, Peter.

Even if you refuse to apologize, would you pledge to at least vote “present” if asked about your position on the Green New Deal?"  

Divest in Fossil Fuel Companies? Reader pushback.

Clear message: burn the ships

Some readers disagree with yesterday's post.

"This is hilariously illogical."

Herb Rothschild writes a guest post today. He disagrees with me. He is in good company.

Progressive Facebook groups piled onto me, explaining that I was dead wrong in saying it was morally inconsistent to condemn fossil fuel producers if one in fact uses--and is dependent upon--fossil fuels. The argument they made was that a transition to renewables was underway and should be encouraged politically, which one did with symbolic messages like divestment and refusal to take fossil fuel campaign contributions.

Body language messages--big unmistakable symbols--is what this blog is all about. They raise a good point. You point the direction you want to go by bold gestures of denial. The example every schoolchild knows is that of Hernan Cortes. He scuttled his ships in front of his men. Cortez wasn't anti-ship. He was making an unmistakable body-language gesture: no turning back. 

I acknowledge this. 

The point in my blog post yesterday was to say that there are multiple messages sent by the gesture of stigmatizing fossil fuel companies, and not only the intended one. Accepting campaign funds from an organization acknowledges a connection to that industry. The politician, the donor, and the public all agree: take their money means you find the industry legitimate. Not taking it means you don't.

However, there is simultaneously the accidental message of hypocrisy, since AOC and the Democratic candidates for president use the products they shame, and opponents will point that out, loudly and repeatedly. The hypocrisy message may be more politically salient than the green energy message.

Social media critic

And the second is the "who has my back" message. Food, energy, lumber, fiber, minerals, are produced in rural areas. Democrats are intentionally showing disrespect for fossil fuels. Rural voters see the boats burning, too. They don't read this a concern for people like themselves in the "rustbelt." Nor as empathy for an industry in decline. Nor commitment to retraining and re-industrialization. They read it as disrespect, and vote accordingly.

The unintended message inside the intended message--that, too, is what this blog is all about.

But today I give voice to my critics, and the most articulate of them is Herb Rothschild. He is a retired English professor, and current peace activist, living in southern Oregon.  

Guest Post, by Herb Rothschild:

"I wouldn’t dare dispute your prediction that Democratic presidential hopefuls will find it a mistake politically to reject contributions from fossil fuel industries. You are far more insightful about electoral politics than I. But I do feel confident that I can usefully challenge your position that it is hypocritical for anyone who uses fossil fuels to advocate divestment from the corporations that produce and sell them.

Herb Rothschild (photo by Allen Hallmark)

I personally divested from such corporations a good while ago. My largest investment currently is in a corporation that supplies wind- and solar-generated electricity to utilities. But I’m keenly aware that, thanks to an inheritance of which I cannot divest myself, I derive some income from oil and gas production. 

So, I don’t think of myself “pure.” Even without that special circumstance, like all of us (as you said) I’m complicit in global warming. But do I think myself hypocritical? It’s a strange notion of hypocrisy that holds it hypocritical to reduce our contributions to global warming even as we acknowledge that we contribute to it. I really don’t understand your thinking here, Peter.

To speak most broadly, we all live at the expense of each other. Material goods are finite. But that doesn’t license us to engross as much of the world’s wealth as we can and to use it with maximum self-indulgence and waste. Surely we don’t have to choose absolute poverty to avoid a charge of hypocrisy when we practice temperance and generosity.

To speak specifically about divestment from the fossil fuel corporations, they don’t simply provide what we need. They actively promote our consumption. They have been the major force behind the effort to persuade people that global warming is a hoax, and they lobby hard to prevent adoption of public policies that will facilitate the transition to green energy. Additionally, they are gross environmental polluters, cleaning up their messes only when they are forced to.

Thanks to technology, the transition to a green economy is moving more rapidly than people know and in spite of the political clout of the great fossil fuel corporations. In 2017, the price of wind and solar power in India dropped 50% to $35-$40 a megawatt hour. Power from a new coal-fired plant using Indian coal is about $60 a megawatt hour and $70 using imported coal. Around the world, more coal-fired plants have shut down in the first two years of Trump’s presidency, despite his best efforts to promote coal, than in the eight years of Obama’s presidency. Planned natural gas plants are being cancelled because banks and utilities are tumbling to the fact that, long before their 40-year expected life is over, they will have become stranded assets.

It didn’t take divestment from General Electric to bring about its fall. It simply cannot sell many turbines for new coal- and gas-fired power plants. As for oil, the growth in electric vehicles spells the end of its dominance. By the early 2020s they will account for all the growth in sales globally. Frankly, money managers would do well to divest from such corporations for financial reasons alone."

Democratic litmus test

No Political Contributions from fossil fuel companies!

My suggestion: the "Slaughterhouse Rule."

The Slaughterhouse Rule is simple. If one disapproves of slaughterhouses, and thinks them disgusting or cruel, then don't eat meat. 

And if one eats meat, one needs morally to own the reality of slaughterhouses.

No funding from fossil fuel companies.

Democrats are getting accustomed to two related ideas. One is a litmus test for candidates: do not accept contributions from fossil fuel companies. The other is that organizations that consider themselves "good," e.g. university endowments, should divest from fossil fuel companies.

This is hypocritical, and it will backfire on Democrats. It already is.

We recognize hypocrisy in others, as when Republicans demand a balanced budget from Obama and then pass the 2017 tax act that creates a trillion dollar deficit. Democrats can be hypocrites, too, and people notice.

Democrats drive cars. They heat their homes. They use electricity. Almost everyone uses petroleum in multiple ways, and the 19th century alternative was worse: whale oil. The reality in America is that cars (and buses and subways) are mostly powered with fossil fuels. All-electric cars, too, even in the Pacific Northwest, because even electric utilities with a big hydro plants have fossil fuels within the mix.  

Social media attack on Beto

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a media star. She shines brilliantly and says interesting, provocative things, and says them with sass. She infuriates Republicans, which thrills Democrats. She also sets standards for Democrats, and if one is crossways with AOC one may be eliminated from consideration as the Democratic nominee. Bernie Sanders supporters are flooding social media with criticism of Beto O'Rourke. He is from Texas. He got money from fossil fuel producers. Shame!

OAC represents part of the Bronx and Queens. It is cheap virtue for an officeholder representing her urban district to speak about the sins of fossil fuel drilling-fracking-mining-refining. That takes place far away, yet there are cars and buses and streetlights in New York. How can that be? Someone drilled and fracked and mined to service the urban market. She needs to own that. 

Democrats generally need to own that.

Students and alumni from universities with big endowments have been organizing to pressure the university to divest. I have witnessed this at Harvard. Harvard is frigid in its five month winter. It heats with oil. The utility servicing Harvard gets 80% of its energy from coal--they call it "scrubbed coal"--and the utility hopes to reduce it to 70% by 2025. Democrats use the energy, but signal that we disapprove of the people who provide it to us.

Harvard Students 

Neither Democrats nor universities are in any position to cast the first stone, but the litmus test talk shows how clueless Democrats can be about the urban-rural divide in American politics, and why so much of heartland America votes red. Urban Democratic politicians think like consumers, not producers. They feel comfortable casting shame on producers, shame which inevitably spill over to the people who work for those companies, people in those congressional districts that vote red. 

It is too easy to scold farmers for using pesticides, oil companies for drilling, coal companies for mining, wood producers for cutting trees--and then go out and eat food, drive cars, illuminate their homes, and use toilet paper. 

We all can have consistency and integrity as consumers. If we don’t like fossil fuels, don’t use them.

Otherwise it is just hollow virtue signaling. Shame on my drug dealer!  No one like a hypocritical scold.

Trump tweet: "Complete and Total EXONERATION."

Trump has the story he wants, and the one he will sell:

     It was a witch-hunt by Democrats to reverse the votes of the 63 million people who voted for Trump, and he was completely exonerated.

"Exonerated"

Danger! Danger! 

The Democratic response could backfire.

Attorney General William Barr summarized the Mueller Report in such a way that Trump can claim victory. The headline story is "no collusion." First impressions matter. Barr did the job he was hired to do.

The pro-Trump media are doing high fives. The Trump team calls it a victory for Trump, a victory for the 63 million people in "Fox Nation," and best of all, a humiliation of the media people who had said the Mueller investigation would find something criminal on Trump. Losers!

The rest of the media are saying hey-wait, there's more. Of course there is more. 

There is more in the Mueller Report itself, and in House investigations, and in whatever the US Attorney for the Southern District in New York finds about financial irregularities, plus what the New York Attorney General finds. 

There is enough to talk about for two years. 

There is a message trap ahead for Democrats. The message they think they are sending won't be the one they actually send. 

Democrats and the media will want to "do their duty" and be seen doing it, especially if it looks like they are good guys and Trump is a shady crook. First thing will be to look closely at the Mueller Report, and flesh out what Barr did not share. House Oversight committees will investigate and member Democrats will be on TV talking about that. Free media.

There will be financial irregularities in banking and in taxes found by other investigations. This is a given. Trump is a New York real estate operator with shady connections to lenders, some of whom are Russian. Democrats will want to get on TV to explain how dangerous this is. More free media.

Meanwhile, the Trump-skeptical mainstream media are hastily backtracking by saying that Mueller was not, after all, the silver bullet, and that there are multiple other areas of concern. They can redeem themselves by having panels discussing the implications of other ongoing investigations. Big panels, lots of nuance.

Problem: The big message going out would be that Democrats are prosecutorial nitpickers and have nothing to do but dump on Trump. 

It does not matter, politically, that these are not trivial nitpicks, that obstruction of justice was something Clinton was impeached over and Obama would have been, had he done a fraction of this. Everyone already knows Trump is a shady self-interested authoritarian crook. His supporters actually like him for it, and persuadable swing voters don't care. What matters is whether Trump is on their side--not whether he is a shady con man.

The marginal voters don't particularly care about how much Trump cheated on taxes or falsified records to get bank loans. Lots of people consider those "venal sins," things they do themselves. Under-report cash income? Presenting high values when making insurance claims? They may not be proud of Trump, but they aren't going to vote against him for it, not if he is working to bring back jobs.

So easy to do. So wrong.

What should Democratic politicians do?  A hard thing. Get off TV talking about Trump's multiple misbehaviors. 

It will be hard because it is the one thing that unifies Democrats. It seems so easy and the media so willing, but don't. Let civil service prosecutors be the ones talking about Trump's misbehaviors and getting free air time. I said it would be hard.

Instead, try to get onto TV to talk about controversial things in which there is no Democratic voter consensus: tariffs and jobs and taxes and infrastructure, and health care and a fair shake for that family in Canton or Grand Rapids or Scranton or Orlando. The media will want to talk about Trump. Instead, talk about Democratic solutions to current problems. Do that, and you will look like a serious alternative to Trump. Talk about Trump misbehavior and you will look like a tiresome nitpicker with nothing to offer. Trump says he has something to offer. Offer something better, with more credibility.

A simple rule of thumb to remember: The marginal voter already knows Trump is shady and he does not care.  

Biden isn't left. Beto isn't left.

        "Listen up, Democrats--that's why no one outside of your right-wing neo-liberal bubble believes for a second that your super-duper progressive platform means jackshit. *cough*  Beto  *cough*"

      

     "We are not going to rally around corporate establishment candidates. We meant it in 2016, and it goes double now."

            Kathy Copeland Padden. Bernie supporter.

Trump has the big tent. Democrats have two tents.

The GOP is Trump's party now. He protects them from the Democratic enemy. He has his 40%.

Social media reveals the deep fracture in the American left.  Some of it is the unhealed wounds of 2016, but it is also a fundamental choice between incremental change as good, or as failure. For some of the most involved activists on the left, there is no such thing as "pretty good." Pretty good is dangerous because it validates and sustains the economic and political system they consider fundamentally wrong. 

Plus, it's a sellout. Evil is evil.

Real Clear Politics posts polls I consider misleading as a guide to the 2020 election. Their February and March polls showed Joe Biden leading Trump by ten points, 55-45, and Bernie Sanders leading Trump by 2 points, 51-49. Biden could be encouraged by that. Centrist Democrats might be as well. It appears to show the best path to Democratic victory in 2020, a candidate who represents a non-Trump stability. A moderate. Not Bernie, who would be demonized as a Communist. Bolshevik Bernie.

Biden is understood to be a liberal by the standards of the previous thirty years, but a moderate-centrist by the standards of the current environment. Beto is getting attention because he appears to be a fresh, new, charismatic version of Biden's politics.  

These polls reflect views before Trump-- and the left itself--pounds the wedge between the two sides of the left. There are significant numbers of votes on the left that will not be available to Biden and Beto O'Rourke.  Democrats need to understand this. The 2020 election will be a difficult one for them. 

What is my evidence? Voices I hear. 

Some voices praise Bernie Sanders. Some criticize Sanders opposition, and this week has provided an up-tick in criticism of Beto. Beto just announced, just raised six million dollars overnight, and Beto draws crowds. The critics are out. isn't "pretty good." He is bad, a conservative. And a lightweight.

Social media is a form of primary source. Below I post one example, one of many that are available. Kathy Copeland Padden calls herself a "political junkie and history buff alternating between bouts of crankiness and wry amusement while bearing witness to the Apocalypse." She says her name is pronounced "Bernie Would Have Won."  She posts articles under her name in Medium, where readers can find others.

Guest Comment:  "Allow Me to Explain Why Beto Sucks" 

Kathy Copeland Padden 

Padden

"Ah, Beto O’Rourke. The Democratic Party Boy Wonder of the moment. With that boyish charm and Kennedy-esque smile, Beto is basking in the glow of love from those too politically naive to realize he’s about as far from Progressive as it’s possible to be.

Let’s start with his love affair with the fossil fuel industry. He signed on to the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge but accepted $430,000 from Big Oil and Gas. He must have had his fingers crossed behind his back, rendering said pledge null and void. Or he thought the check was from Greenpeace. Either way, I’m sure there’s a logical explanation.

And I don’t care that he’s from Texas like that’s supposed to give him a buy here. It does not, it’s completely irrelevant, and ludicrous to boot. I’m from Massachusetts, but I don’t go around burning witches and fawning over Tom Brady. Where you are from is not who you are. I fail to see why perpetrating the worst sins of your home state could ever be considered excusable behavior.

Fossil Fuels are bad. Period. I’ve heard Democrats say it’s “unconstitutional” to refuse donations from corporations hell-bent on destroying humanity for a quick buck. This is the biggest load of horseshit since Trump said Mexico would pay for the border wall. So don’t bother trying to make that fly either.

If that alone wasn't enough to disqualify him as a Progressive, O’Rourke supports the TPP and voted to allow President Obama ‘Fast Track’ authority, completely disregarding the welfare of the American workers and consumers he claims to champion. His position obviously and blatantly disregards environmental responsibility in the name of furthering corporate interests.

But when you are the second biggest recipient of funds from the Fossil Fuel Industry, I suppose trashing the planet really doesn’t matter. He’s only bested by Ted Cruz in that department. Ted Cruz people. Get a grip.

How in any universe is that considered Progressive, or even sane given the dire warnings from climate scientists everywhere? I’ll help you out here. It’s not.

But that was hardly the first or only time O’Rourke championed Big Business over the People. Don’t believe me? Check his voting record. I’ll wait.

And speaking of voting records, the supposedly progressive Beto didn’t support the House bill for single payer healthcare, or the one for debt and tuition-free college. How anyone can believe this corporate kiss-ass has any interest in the will or welfare of the average American is completely beyond me.

So he yammers on about a better future for all Americans while assisting in government-mandated genocide. And then his followers slam the GOP for doing and saying the exact same crap Dream Boy does, only while older, fatter, and balder.

He is more conservative than many self-proclaimed conservatives.

But I’ll hand one thing to O’Rourke — he’s got that old-timey, political glad-handing down pat. He’s the master of comforting catch-phrases motivational poster-style platitudes. He shakes his tousled locks, flashes that Osmond-esque smile and flings the B.S. while the neolib fangirls and boys eat it all up.

So stop trying to make Beto O’Rourke happen. In a world where Bernie Sanders exists he doesn’t stand a chance."