#Rep. Raul Grijalva

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Progressive U.S. lawmakers on Monday took House Republicans to task after the Congressional Budget Office said the erstwhile deficit hawks' first bill before the 118th Congress—a measure critics say is meant to "protect wealthy and corporate tax cheats"—will swell the federal deficit by more than $100 billion.

"They all run on reducing the deficit and now the House GOP's first... bill will increase the deficit by $114 billion," tweeted Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). "Make it make sense."

Increasing the federal deficit can help people and the economy. Republicans have been criticized for hypocritically pushing cuts to social safety net programs in the name of fiscal responsibility while being willing to raise the deficit to help corporations and the rich.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the euphemistically named Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act—which faces a vote as soon as Monday evening—would "decrease outlays by $71 billion and decrease receipts by $186 billion over the 2023-2032 period."

That's because the legislation would rescind $72 billion of $80 billion worth of new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) funding authorized under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed by the Democrat-controlled 117th Congress and signed into law last year by President Joe Biden.

In a December 30 letter to colleagues, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) said the proposed bill "rescinds tens of billions of dollars allocated to the IRS for 87,000 new IRS agents" under the IRA, a GOP talking point that has been widely debunked.

"Today, Republicans in Congress demonstrated their commitment to 'fiscal responsibility,'" Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sardonically tweeted. "The first bill advanced by the GOP adds $114 billion to the deficit—by allowing the super-wealthy to cheat their taxes while everyone else pays. Corporate lobbyists are popping champagne."

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) lamented that the "first order of business in the GOP House of Representatives" will be to "vote to increase the deficit $114 BILLION by letting tax cheats dodge paying what they owe."

"Once again," she added, "they're putting politics over poor and working people."

Advocacy groups also questioned GOP lawmakers' motives for introducing the bill, with Americans for Tax Fairness tweeting that "House Republicans are using their new majority to try and repeal IRS funding that will make rich and corporate tax cheats pay what they owe."

"The GOP wants to let their rich friends keep cheating the rest of us," the group added.

[plethoraworldatlas]

More than 16 members of the House of Representatives introduced legislation today that would prohibit organizing, sponsoring, conducting or participating in wildlife killing contests on more than 500 million acres of U.S. public lands.

Wildlife killing contests are organized events during which participants compete for cash or prizes by killing the most, the largest or the smallest animals over a certain period of time. Each year thousands of native carnivores and other wildlife — including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, raccoons, rabbits, prairie dogs, mountain lions and wolves — are killed during these cruel, senseless competitions.

The Prohibit Wildlife Killing Contests Act of 2024, introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and other congressional leaders, would require the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service to enact regulations banning wildlife killing contests within one year of enactment of the law.

“It’s shocking that these cruel and reckless contests are still allowed on our public lands,” said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity. “America’s wild carnivores are so important to maintaining healthy ecosystems. They deserve better than to be targeted in these thrill-kill slaughter fests.”

Ten states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington — have already outlawed wildlife killing contests within their borders. The Humane Society of the United States conducted undercover investigations into these competitions in more than a dozen states, spurring significant public outrage against the events.

“Wildlife killing contests are cruel events that have no place in modern civil society,” said Johanna Hamburger, director and senior attorney for the Animal Welfare Institute’s Terrestrial Wildlife Program. “Participants frequently violate the fundamental hunting principle of fair chase by using bait and electronic calling devices to maximize the likelihood of winning, and animal carcasses are usually dumped once the contest is over.”

“Most people are shocked to learn that wildlife killing contests are even legal on our public lands,” said Camilla Fox, founder and executive director of Project Coyote. “Killing animals for prizes and entertainment is ethically indefensible, ecologically reckless, and anathema to sound wildlife conservation and management.”

“In addition to being unethical and unsportsmanlike, wildlife killing contests run counter to science-based wildlife management policy,” said Jennifer Eskra, director of legislative affairs of the Humane Society Legislative Fund. “This bill would end this execrable practice and protect wildlife at a national level, something that 10 states have already done.”

“Wildlife killing contests have absolutely no place in our country, including on our public lands,” said Katie Stennes, senior program manager for wildlife protection at the Humane Society of the United States. “These ‘cash for wildlife’ competitions, where native species are targeted, killed and then piled up for photos and bragging rights, is unacceptable. These animals should be respected for their intrinsic value and their key role in healthy ecosystems. We urge Congress to end senseless, wasteful wildlife killing competitions once and for all.”

Additional cosponsors of today’s legislation are Reps. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03), Cori Bush (MO-01), Gerald Connolly (VA-11), Diana DeGette (CO-01), Lloyd Dogget (TX-35), Adriano Espaillat (NY-06), Raul Grijalva (AZ-07), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Ted Lieu (CA-36), Betty McCollum (MN-04), Grace Meng (NY-06), Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Katie Porter (CA-45), Melanie Stansbury (NM-01), Rashida Tlaib (MI-13) and Dina Titus (NV-01).

[jessica-marie-baumgartner]

Vice President Kamala Harris 

President Joe Biden

President Jimmy Carter

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 

Rep. Jerry Nadler

Former Rep. John Lewis

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Biden HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge

Rep. Jamie Raskin

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

Rep. Barbara Lee

Former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz 

Rep. Ted Lieu

Rep. Raul Grijalva

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre 

Former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe

Former Vice President Al Gore 

Rep. Corrine Brown

Rep. Maxine Waters

Former Rep. Alcee Hastings

President Bill Clinton 

Former Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson

President Barack Obama

Former Presidential candidate Jesse Jackson

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Sen. Sherrod Brown

Sen. Debbie Stabenow

Rep. Danny Davis

Former Sen. Ted Kennedy

Biden Climate Czar John Kerry 

Teresa Heinz (John Kerry’s wife) 

Former Rep. Stephanie Tubbs

Sen. Bernie Sanders

Rep. Lacy Clay

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean

Sen. Dick Durbin

Former Sen. Harry Reid

Georgia Gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams 

Sen. Corey Booker

These are all the democrats who openly and repeatedly denied election results between 2000 and 2018. I've yet to see any of them indicted for "conspiracy" or "obstruction."

[beardedmrbean]

June 3 (UPI) -- Longtime U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee announced that she has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and will be missing certain dates in Congress for treatment.

Jackson Lee, D-Texas, made the announcement in a post on social media on Sunday.

"I am currently undergoing treatment to battle this disease that impacts tens of thousands of Americans every year," Jackson Lee said in her statement, posted on X. "I am confident that my doctors have developed the best possible plan to target my disease.

"The road ahead will not be easy, but I stand in faith that God will strengthen me."

Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, is the Democratic Caucus's chief deputy whip and vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Jackson Lee, an advocate for social justice issues in the House, last month reintroduced the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

She said she remained committed to working with Minority House Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., as she undergoes treatment.

"By God's grace, I will be back at full strength soon," Jackson Lee said. "As I pursue my treatments, it is likely that I will be occasionally absent from Congress, but rest assured my office will continue to deliver the vital constituent services that you deserve and expect."

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise was diagnosed with a treatable form of blood cancer, myeloma, and had undergone stem-cell transplant treatment earlier this year.

In April, Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., announced that he had been diagnosed with cancer, but did not specify what kind. He said he was receiving medical treatment and continued testing.

Grijalva, who had served in Congress since 2003, is a member of the National Hispanic Caucus and chair of the National Research Committee.

[recentlyheardcom]

A coalition of mostly House and Senate Democrats penned a letter to President Biden on Friday urging him to grant clemency to Leonard Peltier, a Native American activist convicted in the 1970s of fatally shooting two FBI agents at point-blank range.The Democrats – led by House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., and joined by Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. – cast doubt on the circumstances under which Peltier was found guilty in 1977 of killing the two agents two years prior. The letter was sent ahead of Indigenous People's Day on Oct. 9. One House Republican has also signed on to the letter."As Members of Congress, we sign this letter with a deep commitment to the crucial role we play in upholding justice for all Americans – and to also hold our government accountable when we see a case of injustice, as demonstrated by the long incarceration of Leonard Peltier," the lawmakers wrote to Biden. " We stand with the Tribal Nations of the United States, Indigenous voices worldwide, and leading voices on human rights and criminal justice around the globe in support of Mr. Peltier’s release.""Over the course of his incarceration, particularly in recent years, key figures involved in Mr. Peltier’s prosecution have stepped forward to underscore the constitutional violations and prosecutorial misconduct that took place during the investigation and trial that led to his conviction," the letter continued.NEW YORK DEM'S CAPITOL HILL FIRE ALARM INCIDENT REFERRED TO FEDS FOR CHARGES SIMILAR TO JAN. 6 RIOTERSRep. Raul Grijalva led a coalition of 33 lawmakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in sending the letter to President Biden on Friday.The Democratic lawmakers also noted in their letter to President Biden that Peltier is 79 years old, is suffering from numerous health issues, has been imprisoned for nearly five decades, and is currently being held in a high-security prison in Florida.READ ON THE FOX NEWS APPIn 1977, after a 25-day trial, Peltier was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences of murdering FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams during a shootout in June 1975 at Jumping Bull Ranch located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.CONSERVATIVES CHEER BIDEN OMB DIRECTOR WARNING GOP CUTS COULD PURGE THOUSANDS OF FBI, ATF AGENTS: 'GOOD START'The two agents entered the reservation to arrest an individual wanted for burglary before they engaged in the shootout with several individuals, including Peltier. The agents were wounded by gunfire before they were ultimately murdered, the court found, by Peltier at point-blank range. Peltier fled after the shooting to Canada, where he was captured and extradited back to America to stand trial.While he, Democrats and various activist organizations have repeatedly claimed the trial was marked by lack of sufficient evidence proving he killed the agents, Peltier's conviction has been upheld several times on appeal, even after making its way to the U.S. Supreme Court on two occasions, in 1979 and 2004. The U.S. Parole Commission rejected Peltier's request for parole in 2009.Leonard Peltier is led across the Oakalla prison exercise yard to a waiting helicopter after being deported from Canada to face charges of murdering two FBI agents."We in the Federal Bureau of Investigation vehemently oppose granting Mr. Peltier parole," former FBI Executive Assistant Director Thomas Harrington remarked in a statement during the parole proceedings."The intentional and vicious attack by Mr. Peltier was not simply a blatant attack on two FBI special agents; it was an attack on law enforcement as a whole – an attack on the rule of law," Harrington said. "The inevitable haziness brought on by the passage of time does not diminish the brutality of the crimes or the lifelong torment to the surviving families.

"And the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA), a professional association that mainly represents active FBI special agents, has repeatedly argued against granting Peltier clemency. As part of that effort, the group penned a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland in late 2021, stating the facts of the case and expressing concern that advocates are "working to mislead the public, the Department of Justice, and the White House.""The FBI Agents Association strongly opposed executive clemency for Leonard Peltier," FBIAA President Natalie Bara told Fox News Digital in a statement Friday. "Activists sympathetic to Peltier continue to mislead elected officials and the public in order to secure an early release for this unremorseful murderer of FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams.""FBIAA will continue to counter these efforts, and we stand with the entire FBI family in our determination to ensure that Peltier serves his full sentence."In addition to Grijalva, Jayapal, Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ted Lieu, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush and Ilhan Omar also signed the letter. A single Republican, Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee, has also signed the letter.The White House did not respond to a request for comment.Original article source: Democrats call on Biden to release Leonard Peltier, activist who fatally shot two FBI agents

[denimbex1986]

'Kai Bird, co-author of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning book on which Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer movie is based, issued the following statement endorsing a bill by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), the Nuclear Abolition and Conversion Act, H.R. 2775:

“My book chronicles the birth of the nuclear age. Since the first nuclear testing and bombing in 1945, the man-made nuclear danger has continually increased. Now, today’s 13,000 atomic weapons are unthinkably destructive, indiscriminate, climate-altering devices that can be unleashed by design, by sabotage, or by accident. Therefore, I strongly endorse Congresswoman Norton’s Nuclear Abolition and Conversion Act, H.R. 2775. The bill calls for the US to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as a first step to safely, fairly, verifiably eliminating all nuclear weapons from all countries, and eventually converting the nuclear weapons jobs, brainpower, money, and infrastructure to genuine climate solutions and other pressing human needs.”

“Kai Bird is keenly aware of how the nuclear arms race started, and where it has taken us,” said Vicki Elson of NuclearBan.US. “He has said that ‘humanity missed a crucial opportunity at the outset of the nuclear age’ to eliminate the risk of nuclear catastrophe. But with this new movie reminding us of the urgency, and the Nuclear Ban Treaty offering a sensible pathway to global disarmament, maybe it’s not too late.”

The bill’s original co-sponsors are Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Mark Pocan (D-WI).'

[gwydionmisha]

The Interior department refused to testify and Louis Gohmert refused to wear a mask so here we are.

[theyoungturks]

40+ House progressives asked Nancy Pelosi to not include Joe Manchin's fossil fuel pipeline deal in the next budget bill. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks. https://tyt.com/petitions/speaker-pelosi-don-t-force-progressives-to-vote-against-the-cr Watch LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET. http://youtube.com/theyoungturks/live Read more HERE: https://tyt.com/stories/16AJOKzVziKkKMUmsIUqMY/49867c7b06ca0d70f "More House progressives are signing onto a letter urging House leadership not to attach a measure that would fast-track permitting for energy projects to a must-pass piece of legislation to keep the federal government funded past September 30. More than 40 House Democrats had signed on to the letter as of Wednesday, according to the office of the letter’s organizer, Natural Resources Committee Chair Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ). As TYT first reported, the letter is addressed to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and says fast-tracking permits will hurt Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities disproportionately. The permitting reform was promised to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) last month in return for Manchin helping Sen. Maj. Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) pass the Inflation Reduction Act, a scaled-down version of Pres. Joe Biden’s Build Back Better agenda. Pelosi endorsed the Manchin-Schumer side deal, but progressives say no one asked them whether they’d go along. Their concern now is that they’ll have no choice if Pelosi attaches Manchin’s bill to the government funding legislation." *** The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET. Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ https://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks/join SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/TheYoungTurks TWITCH: ☞ http://www.twitch.com/tyt 👕 Merch: http://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA #TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews 220901__TA01_More_Progressives_Join_To_Fight by The Young Turks

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from EcoWatch:

Five Democratic lawmakers on Friday encouraged President Joe Biden to order an immediate shutdown of the Dakota Access pipeline after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week delivered a victory to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe by ruling that DAPL is operating illegally.

The three-judge panel upheld a lower court's ruling that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it granted an easement for DAPL to cross a federal reservoir along the Missouri River, less than a mile from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

The court ordered a full environmental impact statement examining the threats posed by the oil pipeline. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, as the Democrats' letter to Biden notes, "rightfully fears an oil spill could disproportionately affect their drinking water, as well as hunting and fishing rights."

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairman Mike Faith said in a statement that "we are pleased that the D.C. Circuit affirmed the necessity of a full environmental review, and we look forward to showing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers why this pipeline is too dangerous to operate."

Despite mandating the review, the panel did not order DAPL to stop operating. Jan Hasselman, the EarthJustice attorney representing Standing Rock, said after the ruling that "this pipeline is now operating illegally."

"The appeals court put the ball squarely in the court of the Biden administration to take action," Hasselman said. "And I mean shutting the pipeline down until this environmental review is completed."

Five lawmakers are now backing that call: Reps. Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-Calif.), Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), and Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) as well as Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

[floorcharts]

Who: Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona)

Twitter: @RepRaulGrijalva

When: September 2019

What: Oil exploration in ANWR

Watch on C-SPAN

Read Congressional Record

[aci25]

Why Puerto Rican governor's scandal jeopardizes the island's credibility

In Puerto Rico, demonstrators have gathered for days to demand the resignation of Governor Ricardo Rossello after hundreds of misogynistic, homophobic and crude text messages he exchanged with members of his inner circle were released. Targets included political opponents and the island’s financial oversight board. William Brangham talks to Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., about the fallout.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

FiveThirtyEight has been tracking endorsements throughout the Democratic primary. There have been more than 150 of these so far, out of the fairly broad universe of potential endorsers that we’re monitoring. But most endorsements don’t make national news.

Tuesday night was an exception �� probably the first time all cycle that an endorsement has led the news cycle. Just as the fourth debate was concluding, reports surfaced that at least two of the four members of the “The Squad,” a group of first-term congresswomen who are outspokenly on the left of their party and often critique their party’s leadership, would be endorsing Bernie Sanders. Specifically, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota has already officially announced her endorsement of Sanders, and Rep. Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez of New York will reportedly endorse Sanders at a rally in Queens this weekend. (Contrary to earlier reports, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan has not yet officially endorsed Sanders. A fourth member of “The Squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, has no imminent plans to endorse Sanders or anyone else.)

I have quite a few thoughts about this, which partly go to how I think Sanders’s campaign, and Elizabeth Warren’s, are going overall. If you want a takeaway headline, though, it’s basically that this is the kind of thing I’d want to see more of from Sanders. In other words, it’s good news for him, but it will be better news for him to the extent it presages a more coalition-oriented approach to running a campaign, which includes building alliances with diverse groups of voters and winning endorsements in an effort to expand his coalition. If, on the other hand, it signals a desire by Sanders to provoke an establishment vs. anti-establishment confrontation with Warren, I’m not sure that’s as helpful to him. OK, here we go: Nine quick-ish thoughts about the AOC and Omar endorsements of Sanders:

1. There’s reason to think endorsements matter. Historically, endorsements have been a good predictor of presidential primary outcomes, often rivaling early polls for how well they anticipate how the vote will eventually turn out. The theory behind the importance of endorsements, as perhaps best articulated in the book “The Party Decides”, has come under attack in recent years, mostly because Donald Trump’s nomination in 2016 despite a lack of support from Republican endorsers was a poor data point for the theory (to put it kindly). In addition, some Democrats who received a number of endorsements earlier this year, such as Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, have not yet gained much traction in the polls. Nonetheless, the theory has a fairly good long-term track record. Incidentally, the theory is not necessarily that the endorsements directly influence voters — for instance, that a voter says to herself “Senator Such-and-Such is endorsing Governor So-and-So; guess I’m going to vote for So-and-So!”. (Although, an endorser with as high a profile as Ocasio-Cortez could be an exception.) Rather, it’s that endorsements are a proxy for support from “party elites,” and that party elites’ preferences tend to be a leading indicator of voter preferences.

2. But endorsements matter more when they cross ideological lines — and these ones were more predictable for Sanders. Imagine that, rather than AOC and Omar, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin had endorsed Sanders on Tuesday night. That would have been quite surprising, given that Manchin is fairly conservative while Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. It would have sent a signal, however, that Sanders’s populism could resonate beyond his left-leaning base. Ocasio-Cortez and Omar, by contrast, are more in line with Sanders’s current base, being both quite left-of-center and quick to rebuke the Democratic Party establishment. Those sorts of endorsements matter less, according to “The Party Decides.”

3. The timing was smart for Sanders, and will help to fend off the media narrative that his chances are fading. This is a very pundit-y type of observation, so I’ll be brief. But dropping these endorsements after a fairly strong debate for Sanders1 — and after concerns about the long-term viability of his campaign following his heart attack — strikes me as smart. It could contribute toward a “Bernie comeback!” narrative, especially if Sanders gets a boost in post-debate polls.

4. This is going to intensify intra-left fighting. Want a fairly safe prediction? The primary is going to get nastier. In my read of the various Warren vs. Sanders spats, they’re less about who is further to the left per se and more about how to achieve change, with Warren wanting to work within the Democratic Party and Sanders wanting to upend the Democratic Party and “the system” overall. (To bring about a “political revolution,” as Sanders might say.) One reason I’ve been skeptical about Sanders’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination is that while seeking to upend the system is perfectly valid as a theory of change, it’s a fairly hard way to win a party primary when the party sets the rules, those rules are designed to achieve consensus rather than to reward factional candidates, and voting is restricted in many states to party members. In any event, because Ocasio-Cortez and Omar have a somewhat anti-establishment message — although less so than Sanders himself does — their endorsements are likely to send additional tremors down emerging Sanders-Warren fault lines.

5. “The Squad” is a potential general election liability. A July poll by YouGov found all four members of “The Squad” with negative net favorability ratings among adults nationwide: -17 percentage points for Omar, -16 for Tlaib, -14 for Ocasio-Cortez and -11 for Pressley, although they remain relatively unknown to many voters. (I’d love to cite a wider sample of polls, but I can’t find many others that asked about Omar, Tlaib or Pressler. A number of earlier polls on Ocasio-Cortez found her with negative ratings, however.) They are reasonably popular among Democrats, of course, and Sanders’s objective for now is to win the nomination, not the general election. His campaign has sometimes tried to emphasize his “electability”, however, and these endorsements won’t necessarily be helpful in that respect.

“The Squad” isn’t popular with swing voters

Democrats Independents Republicans Overall Representative Fav. Unfav. Fav. Unfav. Fav. Unfav. Fav. Unfav. Ocasio-Cortez 48 11 17 46 5 69 23 37 Omar 41 11 14 44 5 65 19 36 Tlaib 38 11 13 43 5 62 18 34 Pressley 35 9 13 32 3 55 17 28

Source: CBS News/YouGov Poll, July 17-19, 2019

6. Warren has some tough decisions about whether to lean to the left or the center. One tempting strategy for Warren might be to essentially concede that Sanders is further to the left than she is. Step back and let swing voters associate Ocasio-Cortez and Omar with Sanders, not her, for instance. That doesn’t necessarily mean giving up on voters who identify themselves as left-wing. But it would mean not trying to outdo Sanders by moving further to his left. And it might mean subtlety trying to convey the idea that she’s actually the compromise choice between Sanders on her left, and Joe Biden on her right.

This could be risky, for various reasons. Warren’s current coalition relies a lot on support from the left; 50 percent of “very liberal” voters in the most recent Quinnipiac poll say they prefer Warren, as compared to just 11 percent for Sanders. Meanwhile, trying to strike a middle ground has been difficult for candidates such as Kamala Harris. On the other hand, voters (backed up by a lot of political science research) tend to perceive more moderate candidates as being more “electable,” and electability perceptions have been a problem for Warren. Furthermore, she may eventually need to add support from voters who currently support Biden, and Biden has more support than Sanders, so she could have more to gain than to lose by moving very subtly toward the center.

7. Warren’s lack of endorsements deserves scrutiny. Regardless of her strategy, Warren has received conspicuously few endorsements. She’s currently fourth in FiveThirtyEight’s endorsement tracker, behind Biden, Harris and Cory Booker, and has received only four endorsements from members of Congress outside her home state. She also hasn’t received many endorsements in early states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. Maybe she doesn’t care about endorsements much — but if you believe in “The Party Decides” theory of the race, this is a reasonably big problem for Warren. At the very least, it might mean that party elites are leaving their powder dry and could be open to a candidate who makes a late surge, such as Booker, Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar.

8. Both Sanders and Warren need to expand their appeal to non-white voters, and this is a step in the right direction for Sanders. Ocasio-Cortez is Hispanic (Puerto Rican) and Omar is black (Somali-American). Warren has some nonwhite endorsers herself, such as Raul Grijalva, who is Hispanic, and Deb Haaland, who is Native American. But it’s a pretty white group, as are Warren’s voters. According to YouGov polling for The Economist, Warren has the support of 31 percent of white Democrats, as compared to 15 percent of blacks, 17 percent of Hispanics and 21 percent of voters of “other” nonwhite races.

As for Sanders, his supporters are more diverse than Warren’s in one sense, in that his numbers are fairly even across different racial groups: He has the support of 14 percent of whites, 11 percent of blacks, 19 percent of Hisapnics, and 17 percent of “other” voters, per YouGov. On the other hand, he isn’t actually doing better than Warren with nonwhite voters — she actually has slightly more nonwhite support than he does, according to YouGov (except among Hispanics). Rather, it’s that she’s doing really well with white voters, while his numbers are flagging. In some ways, Warren is starting to replicate the 2016 version of the Sanders coalition, when Sanders won the support of 47 percent of white voters, 26 percent of blacks, and 36 percent of Hispanics, according to the CCES.

To put it another way, Sanders’s support is diverse, but not especially deep, while Warren’s is deep, but not especially diverse. Both of them could stand to gain ground among black, Hispanic and other nonwhite voters, and winning the support of endorsers like Omar and Ocasio-Cortez is good news for Sanders in that regard.

9. Overall, these endorsements could be consistent with a coalition-building approach, which would be a good plan for Sanders. Speaking of expanding one’s coalition: So far, Sanders has not done all that much to expand beyond his current base of support, as I mentioned before. His numbers have been steady in the polls for months, but “steady” isn’t that helpful when you’re polling at only 15 percent — you’ll need more than that to win primaries and caucuses. He’s winning very few voters who didn’t vote for him in 2016, while having lost about two-thirds of the ones who did choose him in 2016 to Warren and other candidates. His team may have miscalculated, thinking that the Sanders base might have been, say, 20 to 25 percent of the electorate rather than 15 percent. It also may have underestimated both Biden and Warren.

But if the critique is that Sanders’s base isn’t broad enough on its own, getting endorsements from the likes of AOC and Omar is at least nodding in the right direction. Sure, it might have been better if they were “against type” endorsers (see point No. 2). But almost any type of endorsement is consistent with a coalition-building strategy, something Sanders has sometimes eschewed in the past even though it’s usually the easiest way to win a party nomination. If Sanders’s campaign uses these endorsements to build momentum toward that strategy — what I sometimes think of as a “kindler, gentler” version of Sanders who is trying to make a broad range of Democratic voters feel at home in his coalition — they could be a turning point in his campaign. If instead they’re a precursor to more left-on-left infighting, probably less so.

[nativenewsonline]

Field Hearing Scheduled for April 15 in New Mexico on Air Quality, Sacred Sites Impacts of Oil and Gas Development 

Congressman Raul M. Grijalva

Published April 6, 2019

Gov. Lujan Grisham Will Testify

WASHINGTON — Chair Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Vice Chair Haaland (D-N.M.) and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), Chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, on Friday announced an April 15 field hearing in Santa Fe, N.M., titled Oil and Gas Development: Impacts on Air Pollution and Sacred Sites,…

[96thdayofrage]

The Harvard College Democrats released a letter Wednesday calling for a national boycott of donations to the party’s House campaign arm, urging people instead to contribute to individual candidates until the DCCC reverses the rule. By Wednesday afternoon, 26 chapters of college Democrats from Spelman to Arizona State had signed the letter calling the policy “regressive” and “undemocratic.” By Thursday, 14 more joined, according to Hank Sparks, president of the Harvard College Democrats.

The DCCC released guidelines last month for vendors working the 2020 election cycle, requiring them to agree not to work with any candidates challenging Democratic incumbents. The committee has stood by the change even as progressive leaders met privately with Chair Cheri Bustos and slammed it. Former committee Chair Ben Ray Luján has distanced himself from the policy. And House Democrats — including Reps. Ted Lieu, former DCCC vice chair and current vice chair of House Democrats’ LGBT Equality caucus; Ayanna Pressley; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Raul Grijalva; Joe Kennedy; Jahana Hayes — have voiced their opposition.

“The rule would financially deter and greatly disadvantage vital new voices in our party, who are often younger and come from underrepresented and historically marginalized communities and identities,” the students’ letter reads. “Primary challengers are essential to ensure that the Democratic Party is continually held accountable to the needs of our constituents. This blacklist policy is undemocratic and antithetical to our values of inclusion and diversity.”

The students also call out the DCCC for releasing the vendor rule alongside diversity standards it will hold vendors to. They cite Pressley, who said that Democrats “cannot credibly lay claim to prioritizing diversity & inclusion when institutions like the DCCC implement policies that threaten to silence new voices and historically marginalized communities.”

This is young Harvard politicos’ second moment in the national spotlight in the span of a week, as students from the school drew attention through aggressive questioning of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and others at a recent televised presidential forum. One student, in a health care question directed to California Sen. Kamala Harris, bizarrely caped for insurance companies. (Harris told the student not to be “duped.”) Another student told Sanders that the money he earned from his best-selling book “undermines your authority as someone who has railed against millionaires and billionaires.” A third demanded that he explain the “failures of socialism in nearly every country that has tried it.”

Even for Harvard Democrats, though, the DCCC has gone too far in its pursuit of a monopoly over the direction of the party. Sparks told The Intercept that the students have been building a coalition over the last week, and that after the CNN town hall on Monday, they realized “we do have a platform to sort of bring attention to things.”

Sparks said his chapter was heavily involved in phone-banking for the DCCC in 2018, particularly for races in districts designated as “Red to Blue,” where the committee identified promising challengers in Republican-held districts and gave them a boost in fundraising and organizational support.

“We do feel like we’ve done a lot of work to sort of help build this new Democratic majority,” Sparks said. “And so we feel like we’re stakeholders in this process as young Democrats. That they should consult us on policies like these.”

College students aren’t exactly bundling big money for the DCCC. “Honestly, it probably won’t have a big financial impact,” Sparks said. “But it’s more about using this language of boycott to draw attention to the issue and to use our platform as students to hopefully get them to reconsider the policy.”

The DCCC says its record of supporting candidates of diverse backgrounds speaks for itself.

“The DCCC is proud of its historic work, flipping 43 formerly Republican seats and electing the most diverse caucus in American history,” DCCC spokesperson Cole Leiter said in a statement to The Intercept. “And as Democrats in the House combat Republicans’ attacks on Americans’ health care, take on special interests in Washington, and fight for an economy that works for everyday Americans, we are already well into our work to fortify this newly won House Majority and take the fight even deeper into ruby-red districts come 2020.”

Sparks and young students across the country poised to carry on the party’s work don’t see it that way. “Primary challengers like Ayanna Pressley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have brought to the fore issues like climate justice in a very, very new way,” Sparks said. “And I think to do anything that would silence voices like theirs would not be good for the party.”

If you’re a college student who is joining the boycott, contact this reporter at akela.lacy@theintercept.com.

Correction: April 25, 2019, 1:51 p.m. ET

A previous version of this article misstated Rep. Ted Lieu’s affiliation with House Democrats’ LGBT Equality caucus, of which he is a vice chair. The article has also been updated to clarify that the DCCC set standards for diversity among vendors, rather than affirming its commitment to diversity. The piece has also been updated to reflect the growing number of college groups that joined the boycott.