#my current district is repped by a Dem

[tomorrowusa]

The last US House race in the 2024 election has been decided, and the seat is a flip for Dems. Adam Gray has defeated incumbent Republican John Duarte in CA-13.

Democrat Adam Gray, a former five-term Assemblymember who lost a bid for Congress in 2022, has unseated incumbent Rep. John Duarte (R-Modesto) in the closest House race — and the last to be called — in the nation this election cycle. Duarte, a farmer turned politician, phoned his challenger just after 5 p.m. to concede the race. “That’s how it goes,” said Duarte, who fell 187 votes short of retaining his seat in the 13th Congressional District. “I’m a citizen legislator, and I didn’t plan on being in Congress forever. But whenever I think I can make a difference, I’ll consider public service in different forms, including running for Congress again.” Duarte defeated Gray by 564 votes two years ago in what was then the second-closest race in the nation. “The Congressman was very gracious and I appreciated the call,” said Gray. “We had a quick chat. He wanted to make sure that we don’t drop any of the work already done here in the Valley.”

At least Duarte wasn't a sore loser like Trump in 2020.

The official margin won't be published until Thursday but it probably won't be far from the current 187.

So with the victory of Adam Gray in California, this leaves Republicans with 220 House members and Democrats with 215. This represents a gain of 2 seats for Dems over the 2022 House results.

But because of the departure of Matt Gaetz,the GOP will begin the 119th Congress with just 219 seats. And with the departure of Mike Waltz (FL-06) and Elise Stefanik (NY-21) to join the Trump administration in the winter, the GOP will be down to 217 seats.

CA-13 was one of three House races to be decided by fewer than a thousand votes. 187 is below the number of students in my HS graduating class.

So keep CA-13 in mind if you know anybody who claims that their vote doesn't count.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ryan Nicol at Florida Politics:

Rep. Hillary Cassel is leaving the Democratic Party and will join House Republicans for the upcoming term. “Today, I am announcing my decision to change my party affiliation from Democrat to Republican,” Cassel wrote in a prepared statement. “This decision was not made lightly but comes from a deep sense of responsibility to my constituents and my commitment to the values that guide my service. I will be joining the Republican Conference of the Florida House of Representatives because I believe in their vision for a better, more prosperous Florida.” Cassel earlier this month posted on X, informing voters of the makeup of the Legislature — which features Republicans holding supermajorities in both chambers — adding, “Understanding the makeup of our State Legislature is key to navigating the upcoming session and addressing the needs of Floridians.” That appeared to be foreshadowing for Cassel’s decision. But she also voiced concerns about the Democratic Party’s shift in recent years. “As a mother, I want to help build a world where our children are judged on their character and their actions not on their labels,” Cassel continued. “As a proud Jewish woman, I have been increasingly troubled by the Democratic Party’s failure to unequivocally support Israel and its willingness to tolerate extreme progressive voices that justify or condone acts of terrorism. I’m constantly troubled by the inability of the current Democratic Party to relate to everyday Floridians. I can no longer remain in a party that doesn’t represent my values.” Cassel is the second Democrat to make the move, following Rep. Susan Valdés of Tampa.

Florida State Rep. Hillary Cassel becomes the 2nd Florida House Democrat to switch to the GOP post-2024 elections. Cassel’s switch was fueled by the Democratic Party’s less-than-full support for Israel Apartheid (aka “unequivocally support Israel”); however, large chunks of the Dems still continue to support Israel. Also, Cassel’s district shifting hard right may have played a role.

[femmecelworld]

weekender

concept pics and behind the scenes stuff

these pics, and this one of course

hiiiiiiiii! if you’re here from my fic, welcome to all the little rabbit trails of my headcanon for weekender, including a lot of stuff I hinted at in the fic -> SPOILERS AHEAD

let’s start with Roman’s new watch:

the date! Succession has played pretty fast and loose with what year it is/how much time passes. here’s how I picked this date: the show aired autumn 2018, which is a midterm election year, and that’s confirmed by Shiv and her Senate candidate. but we know it is NOT a general election year because Senator Eavis has only just started his presidential campaign. reasonable to assume he’s two years from a general election. So the conclusion then is the Mencken v. Jimenez election takes place in 2020. this theory is undercut by Logan Roy obit in s4, where it claims Logan was 84 when he died. And s1 opens with his 80th birthday. but whatev!! so I did the math on what day in April they had the pick the president episode in s3, and what lined up with Michelle Ann’s quote about Election Day, and it would have been April 24, 2020.

Why I choose to believe Mencken bought him that watch: If you pay close attention to Roman, you can see that Roman is pretty faithful to his grey Rolex. We see him wearing it exclusively through seasons 1-3. The other Roys circle through a variety of watches, most notably Ken and Logan. But Roman seems to just have the one.

Then in season 4, he’s wearing a new watch, the blue and silver IWC. It’s an interesting departure. And one could, if one is a freak, choose to interpret that as a hint to a gift from someone new in his life. Like someone that was introduced at the end of season 3.

The Rolex Roman wore through the first 3 seasons is a Rolex Datejust, which is supposed to retail between $10-20k. But the IWC? Costs about $4k. It is the least expensive watch worn by anyone in Succession. And if you’re a rich snob, which the Roys are, almost distinctively cheap? Why would Roman, who is incredibly image conscious, choose to wear such a cheap (by his insane family’s standards!) watch? HMM. CURIOUS. JS!

the Mencken family

the Menckens’ lake house is near Asheville, NC. which, yes, is a very liberal town, but also a popular tourist spot. Mencken’s home district is in Charlotte, NC in a neighborhood called Providence Plantation (on a street named Silver Fox Road) (because it was just too funny a coincidence to pass up) (weirdly those districts 1. just got redistricted, they added a 14th district last year, and 2. it is currently repped by a Dem irl). HIS district is the 8th, essentially part in a Charlotte suburb and the rest is like a +12 R majority.

Sarabeth (his wife) comes from old money, which is how they can afford 3-4 properties.

Part of the reason I love writing Roman & Mencken is the dichotomy and struggle that’s built into their situation. So, while I wrote something that is very sweet (for them), it’s also dark as hell.

1)Mencken took his mistress on a vacation to a house he shares with his wife (that she probably bought because she’s the one with money) Jail!! Straight to jail!! And at the end of anointed, we see Mencken is an absent (deadbeat) father… he could have spent a weekend with his damn kids for a change! instead of once again putting his own interests ahead of the people who love him.

2) speaking of which…. I know everyone was v. stressed in anointed about what was going to happen to Roman after Mencken made a deal with that old creep, then we saw that Roman’s anxiety clouded his perspective. They finally talk about it in weekender and that’s kind of the end of it (although, Mencken doesn’t actually deny that he would do something like that...)

3) I considered adding a chapter of Mencken POV to this but I cut it because it would give away too much of what’s going to happen in a later story. but uh, don’t forget about ch. 2 👀

4) I said this one of the comments on ao3, but I think it’s so funny that hardcore conservatives love songs that are about them being the baddies. amazing example is Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” which so many conservatives have tried to play at their rallies and Bruce told them to f o. It’s like when the Vatican asked Hozier to come there to play “Take Me To Church” 🤡. So that playlist Roman made has a bunch of those songs on it (and the last couple were like, Roman being suuuuuper unsubtle lol)

And that’s all, folks! See ya next time ♥️

[darkmaga-returns]

2/11 ASTROLABE LINKS:

BEAUTIFUL NATIONAL ANTHEM

FIXED THE HALFTIME SHOW

NOT LIKE US BY ALEX JONES

TAYLOR SWIFT BOOED

TRUMP CHEERED

US ARMY AD: STRONGER PEOPLE ARE HARDER TO KILL

GOD-TIER SCHIZO EDIT: THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

PAUL SUDA WEEK 3 RECAP

ELON MAKES CNN SAY HARRY BOLZ

DANA WHITE ROASTS AUSSIE JOURNOS

TRUMP SAYS PRINCE HARRY IS "WHIPPED"

TRUMP ROASTS HUFFPO REPORTER

TRUMP ADMIN DEPUTIZING IRS AGENTS TO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

FBI TIPPED OFF CRIMINAL ALIENS OF INCOMING ICE RAID

TOM HOMAN SAYS DOJ WILL CRIMINALLY CHARGE FBI MOLE

NY COURT TO HEAR CASE ON WHETHER 800K ILLEGALS CAN VOTE IN NYC ELECTIONS

STEPHEN MILLER DOING WHAT HE LOVES BEST

TRUMP ON NEXT MOVE FOR DISMISSING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

"TRAUMATIZED USAID WORKER WHO SURVIVED DOGE BLOODBATH"

GOVT WORKER WHINING ABOUT HAVING TO JUSTIFY HIS EXISTENCE TO 19YO DOGE EMPLOYEES

THE LEGAL BASIS FOR DOGE

SCOTT BESSENT INTERVIEW ON DOGE

ELON ON WHAT DOGE AND TREASURY HAVE JOINTLY AGREED

15 MIN DOGE FANFIC VIDEO

DEM CONGRESS LOSERS HARASSING SECURITY GUY

DEBUNKING NYT NARRATIVE ON DOGE

ANTONIO GRACIAS BREAKS DOWN TREASURY MONEY FLOWS

CHINESE HACKERS BREACHED TREASURY COMPUTER SYSTEMS

SOCIAL SECURITY DATABASE IS NOT DE-DEDUPLICATED

DEMS PROVIDED SSNS TO ILLEGALS

FEMA SENT $59M TO LUXURY HOTELS IN NYC TO HOUSE ILLEGALS

NYC PAYS $220M TO GOVT OF PAKISTAN TO HOUSE ILLEGALS IN ROOSEVELT HOTEL

BIDEN ADMIN LIED ABOUT FEMA FUNDS BEING DIVERTED TO ILLEGALS

ASSISTANT DHS SECRETARY SAYS THOSE WHO AUTHORIZED ILLEGAL PAYMENTS WILL BE FIRED AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE

FEMA'S CFO AND THREE OTHERS FIRED

DISTRICT COURTS GETTING INCREASINGLY DESPERATE

JUDGE ISSUES EMERGENCY ORDER HALTING DOGE ACCESS TO TREASURY PAYMENT SYSTEMS

LIBS JUDGE SHOPPING FOR INJUNCTIONS AGAINST DOGE

TREASURY PAYMENTS SYSTEM IS MANAGED BY UNVETTED CONTRACTORS

JUDGE OBSTRUCTING FEDERAL FUNDING FREEZE

MORE ON SAME JUDGE

TRUMP ADMIN STILL FREEZING FUNDS DESPITE COURT ORDERS

VANCE TWEET ON ILLEGITIMATE COURT ORDERS

ADRIAN VERMEULE TWEET RT'D BY VANCE

DC JUDGE ORDERS TRUMP TO RESTORE WEB PAGES RELATED TO SEX CHANGE OPS AND GENDER IDEOLOGY

USAID EMPLOYEES SAY TRUMP ADMIN NOT COMPLYING WITH JUDGE'S ORDER TO PREVENT IMMEDIATE DISMANTLING OF USAID

MIKE DAVIS AND STEVE BANNON ON THE ABOVE JUDGE

STEVE BANNON AS GROYPER

JUDGE BLOCKS FIRING OF ETHICS WATCHDOG

JUDGE ORDERS TRUMP TO RESTORE DEI FUNDING TO NIH

JUDGE BLOCKING FEDERAL FUNDING FREEZE HAS CONFLICT OF INTEREST

REP. JAMIE RASKIN'S WIFE VIOLATED STOCK ACT

CFPB HAS $700M SLUSH FUND

RUSS VOUGHT'S LETTER TO JAY POWELL RE: CFPB FUNDS

TRUMP ROASTING LIZ WARREN

SSA WAS SENDING REGULAR PAYMENTS OF ~$200K IN GRANTS TO UKRAINE

FEDERAL GAO FOUND $247B IN IMPROPER PAYMENTS IN 2022 ALONE

BIDEN'S #2 AT THE PENTAGON ARGUING WITH JON LEIBOWITZ

WHY ELON STARTED WITH USAID BEFORE PENTAGON + CURRENT TRAJECTORY OF CUTS

DOD PROVIDES SCHOOL LUNCHES

MAHA MOM ON TIKTOK DEMANDS TAX REFUND

TRUMP ON POTENTIALLY FRAUDULENT TREASURIES

TRUMP SIGNS EO PUTTING DOGE IN CHARGE OF FEDERAL DOWNSIZING

SEMAFOR LEAK ON INCOMING DOGE EO

[colorsinautumn]

im following it pretty closely (🤢) and i believe the calls for biden to drop out are largely w the expectation that kamala will run instead, informed by internal and external polling which shows her having a better chance to beat trump than biden currently has (based on this same polling). a lot of dems who are publicly calling for him to step aside are house reps in vulnerable districts who will probably lose their down ballot races if theyre endorsed by such a broadly unpopular candidate. it all sucks lmao and every option has huge downsides to match any pros but. idk if u were actually curious thats my understanding of the current situation

the way you predicted this literally yesterday and look what happened

[beardedmrbean]

A prominent Democrat and Jewish leader who served for decades as a New York lawmaker and now leads a group committed to fighting antisemitism announced Thursday he's leaving his lifelong political party and becoming a Republican, arguing Democrats have become "radicalized" and "turned their back" on the Jewish people.

"It's official: My wife and I have switched our party affiliation from Democrat to Republican!" Dov Hikind, who spent 36 years in the New York State Assembly and later founded Americans Against Antisemitism, tweeted.

"[People] have long been asking, 'Dov, when are you gonna leave the Democratic Party?' Well, the time has come [because] the Dems have turned their back on Jews & Israel, so it's officially done!"

Hikind's tweet included a video of him and his wife, Shani, explaining their decision to join the Republican Party.

"I have been a lifelong Democrat — my family, my parents. But that's over. That's finished," said Hikind. "I have decided to register as a Republican. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has become so radicalized … that people who are moderates or conservative Democrats are not welcomed in the Democratic Party, and I've had enough." Hikind added the Democratic Party "turns its back on its friends like Israel," criticizing the Biden administration for its policies toward the Jewish state. "I am delighted to join the Republican Party," Hikind added. "This is about sending a message — a message to the Biden administration, a message to the Democratic Party. We're losing the American people because you are not representing our values. You are not representing the Democratic Party that my parents were so proud of."

Hikind's announcement came one day after some progressive Democrats boycotted a speech by Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who addressed a joint meeting of Congress to mark the 75th anniversary of Israel's founding. During his speech, Herzog gave a thinly veiled rebuke to members of the House for recent attacks on Israel.

"Criticism of Israel must not cross the line into negation of the state of Israel's right to exist," said Herzog. "Questioning the Jewish people's right to self-determination is not legitimate diplomacy. It is antisemitism. Vilifying and attacking Jews, whether in Israel, in the United States or anywhere in the world, is antisemitism."

Over the weekend, Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., caused an uproar by calling Israel a "racist state." Though she walked back her comments somewhat, they were still met with fierce criticism from both sides of the aisle.

GEORGIA DEMOCRAT DEFECTS TO GOP AFTER SHE SAYS DEMS 'CRUCIFIED,' 'ABANDONED' HER

The furor led Republicans to force a vote on a resolution that said Israel was neither a racist nor an apartheid state. The measure was overwhelmingly supported by all but ten Democrats — nine who voted "no" and one who simply voted "present." Jayapal voted with the majority that said Israel was not racist.

On Thursday, the same day as Hikind's announcement, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y, doubled down on calling Israel an "apartheid" state.

Hikind is hardly the first former or current Democrat lawmaker to recently switch parties.

Earlier this month, Mesha Mainor, a Democrat who has represented District 56 in the Georgia House since January 2021, announced she will switch her party registration to Republican.

"When I decided to stand up on behalf of disadvantaged children in support of school choice, my Democrat colleagues didn’t stand by me," Mainor told Fox News Digital at the time. "They crucified me. When I decided to stand up in support of safe communities and refused to support efforts to defund the police, they didn't back me. They abandoned me."

In April, state Rep. Jeremy LaCombe announced he had left the Democratic Party and would be registering as a Republican. At the time, he was the second Louisiana Democrat in less than a month to switch party affiliations after Louisiana state Rep. Francis Thompson gave Republicans in the state House a supermajority by switching his party affiliation.

The "modern-day Democratic Party has become unrecognizable to me and others across the state," North Carolina State Rep. Tricia Cotham said of her decision to switch parties. "I will not be controlled by anyone."

Overall, more than one million Americans have switched their party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in the last 12 months.

[catsconflictscopicsandchamomile]

ok. sure.

actually, I (or, FAR more accurately, the activist spaces I work in) DO have a pre-determined, set and written-down plan to utilize voting & legislative power to help Palestine in a tangible way

its late asf, and I know I'm kicking a hornet's nest here, but this post is pissing me the FUCK off, and from Neil Gaiman no less, so here we go, I'll try to keep it brief and may come back with actual sources and organizing materials at a less 4 a.m. time

tldr, here's the current plan

keep calling out Biden at every turn, as president, DESPITE any veto risks, he does have the CLEAR MORAL OBLIGATION to both ATTEMPT further and more drastic action, and, in the event that he is vetoed, SPEAK on it. However, general callouts and rally chants aside, Biden is not the target here

the senators & reps ARE.

by picketing and protesting the offices & public events of senators and reps who support Israel or abstain from the issue, we are making sure that both the senators and their constituents CANNOT IGNORE their actions

"We won't vote democrat" isn't idealism or being somehow divorced from reality- it is a threat (loss of constituent/voter base, loss of political power) that politicians, regardless of whatever other beliefs they hold, will at least notice, and hopefully listen to. "We will not be voting for you, because you (supported/remained neutral on) a genocide" shows Senators & Representatives that 1) they are at risk of losing many voters/supporters, and 2) it is directly because of their actions/stances re: Palestine. This is why we want so many people to take this stance. The bigger the potential loss, the higher pressure to allow/create measures that will cause actual change (even if that change is only at the policy level)

Especially on local/state levels, third-party candidates are being more heavily endorsed than ever- and while the risk/progress balance on this will vary greatly based on an individual's state/district/city/etc, local-level changes like this are especially worth looking at imho.

While I PERSONALLY don't know what I will do ON voting day at a national level (the status of voting dem/republican(FUCK NO)/third party is a touchy and complex issue here, and many things may change before November) I know that I fully agree with and support the full-throated leverage of vote refusal as a pressure tactic on our senators and representatives, as well as president Biden.

Lastly, I understand that there will likely be some responses here calling me "privileged" or saying that as a white cis(?) woman, I won't be harmed by the consequences of my/our actions. I don't have an argument here except to say that not only do I fully see your point of view, but I'm actively concerned about it and constantly weighting this issue re: what decisions and beliefs I gravitate towards. I'm doing my best to think clearly and listen to diverse voices on the subject.

I can TELL you that these aren't ideas I had on my own, that they came from a larger community of activists in my city. I can TELL you I was at a march on Saturday, where the loudest voices for everything I described above came from BIPOC activists, and I can TELL you that a largely-nonwhite, fairly queer, and majority-female crowd cheered for them-- but I can't PROVE that to you, and I won't claim that I can, or that you're wrong or bad for not believing something a stranger online said in a pissed-off, totally unsourced reblog rant. However, IF you're going to make that specific argument, consider saving your time and energy, because I'm well aware and wrestling with it myself. These things aren't easy, if they were all easy decisions and cut-and-dry choices, it wouldn't be real work, and it wouldn't be real change.

gnight

I'm just going to leave this here, because this woman said what I've been trying to articulate for ages much more effectively and succinctly than I've been able to

[highwaydiamonds]

So, this is silly, but I'm irked that I got redistricted from one congressional district to another in the last few years.

For more years than I want to note, I was part of the district that is getting the big deal special election on Tuesday. And in all the time I've lived here, it's never been held by a Dem, not even closely contested.

The seat up for grabs was John Kasich's seat for 17 years, and following him, it was his chosen guy's (Pat Tiberi's) seat for another 17 years. This district has been red longer than I have been conscious of politics.

So, the fact that there is a tight race right now, instead of the usual "not even a ghost of a chance" for Dems, and I don't get to vote in this election is killing me! I want to vote in that election for O'Connor so badly I can taste it! He's not even as liberal a candidate as I would usually be excited about, but a Dem as a real possibility in OH-12... That's the stuff dreams are made of.

[schraubd]

"Dems" Who Endorse Third Party Candidates Are Monsters. Zero Exceptions.

"Dems" Who Endorse Third Party Candidates Are Monsters. Zero Exceptions. Back in 2018, when I was still living in Berkeley, I was really having a difficult time deciding who to vote for in a D-on-D assembly race between Buffy Wicks and Jovanka Beckles. Both seemed like solid people I'd be happy to have representing me in Sacramento, and I struggled to find much distinguishing the two. Until I learned that Beckles had voted for Jill Stein in 2016. Suddenly, a hard choice became very easy. Wicks gets my vote (and she went on to win the election). Fast forward a few years, to 2022. I now live in Oregon, a pretty reliably blue state. Except this year, our gubernatorial race includes not just the standard D-R matchup between Democrat Tina Kotek and Republican Christine Drazan. It also includes a well-financed "independent" candidate -- former Democratic State Senator Betsy Johnson,* well-known as among the most conservative Democrats in the caucus. Johnson, who has called Portland a "city of roaches", ran expressly because she couldn't tolerate a more liberal Democrat being the party's standard-bearer. Polling suggests an extremely tight race, and Johnson 's presence on the ballot could let the Republican slip into the governor's mansion with barely 30% of the vote. The very thought makes me livid. The idea that in Oregon, in 2022, we might have a Republican Governor because some egomaniacal blue dog Dem just couldn't back her party's nominee is outrageous. Among Johnson's endorsers is outgoing Democratic Rep. Kurt Schrader, in an obvious sore-loser move after he lost his primary to challenger Jamie McLeod-Skinner. I couldn't vote in that election -- I now live in Schrader's district, but I moved here a few weeks after the election -- and I certainly understood the pragmatic argument in favor of Schrader in a swing-y district. But Schrader himself? Absolutely dead to me. I shed zero tears for his demise. There is nothing I have more contempt for than a nominal Democrat supporting a third party in a contested general election. It is terrible if it is a "from the left" protest vote for a middle-of-three-evils like Jill Stein. It is terrible if it is a "from the center" chin-stroker vote because the Democrat is "just too radical".  The current iteration of the Republican Party is a hairsbreadth away from being actual fascists. Stopping them from attaining political power is a moral obligation of the highest order. Very, very few things can trump that obligation. I can think of essentially no significant Democratic figure whose views or practices are so noxious as to trump that obligation. Yes, that includes every single member of the Squad. Yes, that includes Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema and Henry Cuellar. I don't care how annoying you find them. I don't care how valid your grievances are against them. None of them are worse than your typical 21st century Republican. If they are the general election nominee, and they're running against a Republican, you vote for them, and you do it with a smile. * In researching this post, I learned the ultimate terrible fact: Johnson is a Carleton College alum. She also got her J.D. at Lewis & Clark. I am devastated. via Blogger https://ift.tt/wk9Q5jO July 24, 2022 at 04:43PM

[mostlysignssomeportents]

This is your Congress on drugs

Back in 2014, a pair of political scientists published a study of 1,779 US “policy issues” over 20 years, concluding that elected officials make policy to benefit the richest ten percent of the country to the exclusion of the needs of everyone else.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

This was true irrespective of whether there was mass pressure from citizen groups. In the USA, politicians make sure that richest ten percent get whatever they want and do nothing for the rest of us.

I find this study incredibly depressing and do my best to keep it out of my mind. After all, while this is true in nearly every case, we all know about instances in which policy supported the many and not the few. The formation of the FTC and EPA was not the product of a fallen civilization in possession of lost and unfathomnable technology.

So I soldier on, telling myself “This isn’t the kind of fight we win, it’s the kind of fight we fight” (as the epigraph from my 2019 collection Radicalized has it), but every now and then, well… Ugh.

The Democrats set to kill pharma price controls in the Build Back Better plan.

https://khn.org/news/article/despite-restraints-democrats-drug-pricing-plan-could-still-aid-consumers/

Americans pay 300% more for their medicine than people outside of the USA. 95% of Democrats want Medicare to negotiate drug prices (that’s right, the US government doesn’t negotiate the price it pays for drugs) (seriously). 82% of independents support Medicare drug-price negotiations. 71% of Republicans support this, too.

It’s not just Medicare. 84% of Americans support price-caps on drugs used to treat chronic illness (think: insulin):

https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2021/11/healthcare-affordability--majority-of-adults-support-significant-changes-to-the-health-system.html

93% of Americans think that pharma companies will still be able to fund drug research with these measures in place (90% of Republicans agree). They’re obviously right, because the bulk of critical pharma R&D is paid for by the US government, not pharma companies.

https://khn.org/news/article/public-opinion-prescription-drug-prices-democratic-plan/

And yet. The latest Build Back Better pharma proposal is basically a nothingburger in a my-eyes-glaze-over bun of bureaucratic nonsense. In the current proposal, Uncle Sucker will be allowed to choose up to ten drugs per year (or as few as zero drugs per year) to negotiate prices on. Not just any drugs: those ten (or zero) drugs must have been on the market for at least 13 years.

Then…nothing happens.

Until 2025, when the controls kick in. If the new Senate, Congress and presidential administration decide to make them stick. And since the Dems are not delivering any benefit to the American people until after the next presidential election, the politicians who supported this measure won’t be able to campaign on its benefits to win re-election and ensure it actually takes effect.

Why is this bullshit the best we can get? Why were the incredibly popular, stronger versions of this measure not a slam dunk?

It’s really uncomplicated. The pharma industry bribes key Democrats to block it.

For example, Kyrsten Sinema campaigned on drug-price controls. Then pharma gave her $100,000. Then she killed a House proposal that would have lowered the prices Medicare pays for 250 drugs. 94% of Arizona voters supported the measure. She killed it for the price of new Mercedes SUV.

Then there’s Senator Bob Menendez, whose state (NJ) includes 13 of the 20 largest pharma manufacturers. And Rep Scott Peters, whose San Diego district is also heavy with pharma companies. Their constituents want lower drug prices. Their corporate donors don’t.

You and the people you love might die because of this. The country will throw billions to the pharma industry as a result of it. The lobbying bill for Phrma, whose bribes account for those bodies and those billions? A mere $23m so far in 2021.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/11/05/pharmaceutical-industry-drug-price-lobbying/

It’s a goddamned steal.

We know the names of the executives, lobbyists and politicians who took pennies that cost us billions while we died in our droves. We won’t forget. Someday, there has to be a reckoning.

I mean, doesn’t there?

[fantastic-nonsense]

@writer-of-words replied to your post “also like…just so y’all know…this nonsense and my response isn’t...”

I wish we had a (truly) leftist candidate who didn’t compromise their ideals to appeal to “centrists” by throwing the most marginalized under the bus. All I know about JR is his transphobia and that’s all I need to know. I’d be more keen to wholeheartedly back Warren (as opposed to casually support for pushing Dems more left) if she’d do the work to make up to Indigenous folk

Oh but she is! I’m actually really excited that I get to talk about this, because I think it’s one of the biggest misconceptions of Warren and her campaign.

First of all, I think it’s important to note that she has formally apologized on more than one occasion and has been actively meeting with leaders from various Native American tribes and communities to discuss policies that are important to them. So in that respect, she is actively making the effort and doing the work by meeting, listening, and absorbing.

Second, Warren was the first candidate to come out with a policy agenda specifically aimed at lifting up and empowering indigenous communities; she remains the only candidate still in the race to do so (Castro also rolled out a detailed plan; Castro has since endorsed Warren and is actively campaigning for her). Sanders has two bullet-pointed paragraphs on the subject, but Warren is the only one that has clearly done the homework (with the input of indigenous leaders!) on what actually needs to be done with respect to those communities. She is actively listening, learning, and bettering herself on the subject, and that’s something that is very rare in politicians (especially these days, unfortunately).

Finally, she also tapped Deb Haaland (one of two of the first Native American women in Congress, elected just two years ago in the 2018 midterms) to be one of her three national campaign co-chairs (a position of enormous power, influence, and voice); the other two are Katie Porter (a progressive that won a traditionally Republican House District in California and a former student of Warren’s) and Ayanna Pressley (current House Rep from Massachusetts and the fourth member of “The Squad”). 

I note Haaland specifically not just because it shows Warren is genuinely making the effort by elevating Native voices to positions of power within her campaign, but also because Warren has been collaborating with her for quite some time, such as introducing legislation to address chronic underfunding and tribal sovereignty issues in Indian Country back in August. 

All of this is to say that Warren is actively working to “walk the walk” and not just talk the talk, both in elevating indigenous people to positions of power and influence and actively working with them to understand what is going on in their communities and how they need help. Which goes back to one of the many reasons I support her: she is someone both humble enough to recognize that someone else's plan might be better and more informed than hers and someone who is proactive enough to listen to her constituents, use them to identify pitfalls in current legislation and law, and write plans and legislation to address those gaps.

Hope that helps clear up at least a few of your concerns, and let me know if you’d like to talk about anything else!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jess Piper at The View From Rural Missouri:

When I first moved to Missouri, I taught at a school in Kansas City. I introduced myself for the first time to a co-worker, and she asked where I was from; I told her Arkansas. I didn’t specify a town because no one has heard of Altus, AR. She said, “What’s it like moving to a big city?” She assumed I was from a small town because I was from Arkansas. I laughed and asked her if she’d ever heard of Little Rock or any town in Northwest Arkansas? They are pretty big cities and all are in Arkansas.

To be clear, I was not offended. I am rural, but I have noticed over the years that folks confuse GOP-dominated states with rural spaces. They aren’t the same. Even the reddest states have blue cities. Even the most regressive of states will have progressive voters. And, rural communities always have Democratic voters. Ask me how I know. I know there has been much written on the vote-against-our-their-self-interest, redneck voter. Something about red hats and diners. Something about guns and racism. A lot of it isn’t nice or even true. I have some thoughts…

Reaching rural voters.

Rural folks aren’t props. You don’t have to pander to us with pickups or jeans or boots, although if you showed up in a pair of Mucks, I’d know you were the real deal. You don’t have to wear a plaid shirt, or drive a flat bed— looking at you, Josh Hawley. You don’t have to use the word “y’all” unless it’s natural. You don’t have to talk down to us like we aren’t educated. You don’t have to ask about crop prices unless you know enough to not embarrass yourself. You don’t have to act any differently with rural people than you would with any other bloc of voters.

[...]

It’s not that difficult to understand rural people. Many of us have been rural all of our lives and we want the same things every other American wants. We are like you in most respects, but we might value physical privacy and a hands-off approach to government a little more — and we don’t mind a long drive to town. Here are a few misconceptions about rural Americans:

We all live on farms. In fact, most of us don’t. Many of us work in ag, but we don’t own big farms. You need generational wealth to buy a farm that you can make a living off of. There is a listing just down the highway from me for 220 acres of tillable ground. No house, no out buildings, no barns. It’s listed at 1.5 million. That’s just the land. Now, go price a combine. You’ll need generational wealth.

We all vote against our self-interest. We often vote for progressive ballot initiatives (hello, legalized weed) so you know that’s not true. However, I will not be able to vote for a State Representative in November. My current Rep has no Democratic opposition. Last cycle, it was me running against him, but I couldn’t afford to run again this cycle. When tallying up Dem voters, it will be easy to write my district off, but we will have no one to vote for. I couldn’t vote in my self-interest if I wanted to.

We are all gun nuts. I mean, a lot of us own guns, but we also use them. They are tools in my house, not accessories to wear to town and never used to intimidate. My kids hunt (we eat what we harvest) and we also use them to protect livestock. It’s also handy if you’re in FFA and enjoy competing in shooting events. P.S. Not all of our kids are in FFA or 4H, but those programs are awesome…especially for young women.

We are all racists. I’m absolutely positive rural America has its share of racists, but guess what? So do the cities. There are Black folks who have lived in rural spaces for generations (shocking!) There are people of all backgrounds who call rural America home, just like every other corner of the US. We have racists, but racism isn’t just contained in rural spaces. It’s an American epidemic, not a rural one.

We are all angry. I recently read a book title about the “angry white rural voter” written by a couple of progressives and my first though was, well, this will help the cause. Yes, there is anger, and if you visit places like my town, you’d see why. We aren’t building, we are razing. We aren’t growing, we are diminishing. The anger isn’t from some pissed off redneck. It’s local folks seeing their way of life dying. Their children moving away and never coming back. It’s not anger…it’s sadness. Yes, many of us could vote better, but back to not having a Democratic nominee…

Here’s what I truly think; the way back to sanity is through rural America and red states. Wyoming has the same amount of Senators as California — why not send money and resources to Wyoming? Or Montana. Or Arkansas. Or Iowa. Or Missouri. Contest every seat on every ballot — even in rural spaces. Especially in rural spaces.

Jess Piper writes yet another home-run piece on rural voters and Democrats: they are in rural areas, even if they are outnumbered and oftentimes don't have a candidate running for such offices.

Hopefully the trend reverses.

[taylorscottbarnett]

Breaking down impeachment and 2020 races:

The House votes for impeachment. The US Senate holds a trial to determine removal or acquittal. They don't have anything to do with the act of impeachment itself, just they just decide what happens AFTER someone has been impeached.

Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton both were impeached by the US House. That's the historical record. Neither was removed from office by the US Senate -- but they were still impeached. A simple majority vote in the House is all it takes to impeach an official.

Now if Trump is removed or not depends on the political calculus of the Senate. Mitch McConnell is a bastard, but if he thinks it will hurt his Republican majority in the chamber and his leadership -- he'd vote to remove Trump himself. Make no mistake McConnell has no love for Trump. However backass Kentucky does.

The Republican establishment is not loyal to Trump -- period. He's just useful to them. Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Tom Cotton, Johnny Isakson, David Perdue, Rand Paul, Bill Cassidy only support Trump because he brings votes. That’s 8 Republicans that only support Trump to help themselves.

That being said let me break down some key republican races:

Susan Collins: is refusing to co-sponsor a Senate resolution condemning the impeachment investigation in the House, Guess who else up for reelection in 2020? Susan Collins. Guess who is the only Republican left in Congress from a New England state? Susan Collins.

Roy Blunt: in 2016, running as an incumbent for the Missouri Senate, he only got 49.18% of the vote. A paltry 78k votes kept him in his seat. If his challenger had gotten just 5% or more in the 5 counties he carried, a Democrat would have won that race. In three counties that Blunt just barely got 50% of the vote could have turned the race to a Democratic flip.

Richard Burr: hailing from North Carolina, a state that has a fairly recent history with sending Democrats to the Senate -- mind you Trump only carried by 3.67% -- and Burr only took 51.1% of the vote in 2016. And Kay Hagan lost her seat while refusing to distance herself from Obama, by 1.7% We are talking a paltry 48,511‬ votes here -- far less than Blunt in Missouri, a state with more of a right-leaning bent. If Hagan’s leads in the counties she carried were only slightly larger or Burr’s slightly smaller, a Democrat would be representing that state. Mind you this was also in a 2014 midterm, and Nationwide voter turnout was 36.4%, down from 40.9% in the 2010 midterms and the lowest since the 1942 elections. In 2014, it was 36.7 percent — the lowest in 72 years.  Turnout in 2018, by comparison, was the highest in a century. 49.3 percent of the voting-eligible population voted in 2018. North Carolina meanwhile are divided on the impeachment inquiry -- however  48.2 percent—say that his actions justify an impeachment inquiry, while 41 percent state his actions do not. These three are politically speaking the most vulnerable to losing their seats if they are presented clear evidence and don't vote to remove Trump.

Thom Tillis, another Republican from North Carolina, won his seat in 2014 with 48.82 percent of the vote, the lowest winning total in North Carolina history for a U.S. Senate candidate. He won by 1.56%. If 5 counties had slightly more Democratic turnout or 5 republican counties had slightly less, he'd have lost. Guess who's up for reelection in 2020? Let me also add Democrats came within two points of picking up a pro-Trump district in 2018.

Oh right: Cory Gardner. Republican Senator from Colorado -- and widely regarded as one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the chamber.

Ah and Georgia. Trump carried that by 200k votes. This will be one of the most closely watched and costly Senate campaigns in 2020. It’s also going to boast two Senate races. A good national cycle for Democrats — or a good Democratic candidate — could be enough to flip the seat blue. When both of a state’s Senate seats are on the ballot at the same time, they almost always go the same way. The last time there was a split decision in one of these “double-barrel” Senate elections was 1966.

Oh. Arizona is also holding a special election. In Arizona since Trump took office, his net approval in Arizona has decreased by 23 percentage points

Tennessee is also going to have an open Senate seat. James Mackler is running in the Democratic primary. The last Senate race was shockingly close for a reliably Republican state.

Nine unusually competitive Senate races for Democrats. Nine seats they'll contest like they haven't in years. Ten Senate seats republicans are not that used to having to defend. In 2014, Republicans flipped 9. Never mind the funding advantage -- Democrats have outraised Republican Candidates by nearly 5 million dollars this cycle.

Wait. 10. Mitch McConnell is up in 2020. He’s not liked by even Republicans in this state. Unseating a Senate Majority Leader is no easy task, but with McGrath's entry into the Democratic Primary - a challenger who came the closest I've ever seen a Democrat come to unseating Andy Barr, plus her ability to fundraise like no Democrat I've seen in this state, and McConnell's nationwide loathing by Democrats, make a slim-albeit fair shot – and if she can pull it off it’ll be the biggest upset in recent Senate history, and the biggest of 2020 by far – even if Trump loses and mathematically all she needs to do is have a great turnout in Louisville and Lexington areas, and not lose too badly in the north and east and west. There's plenty of Democrats and Republicans who voted for Barr in 2018 who would happily vote for McGrath against McConnell. She also has an astounding fundraising apparatus. These are winnable races. These are races that Democrats and Republicans will fight over like never before. Democrats, if Trump is re-elected need only 4 seats to block him from doing most of anything he wants short of executive orders, even if he does get acquitted. However, these are 10 races Republicans have to decide if Trump is an asset or a liability. And if Trump loses/is removed Democrats only need capture 3 -- and there's little chance of him losing and they not. Three of nine competitive races. Democrats in the House have also been busy fortifying their new Democratic members against the competition they’ll face in 2020 - as well as trying to expand the map. I mean look, Democrats are eyeing taking control of Texas’ House of Reps. And after winning a supermajority in the California State House, are targeting the few remaining US House seats as well. Kentucky Democrats are going at Andy Barr’s seat again as McGrath came within a hair of flipping a seat he’s held for a decade. Three points and McGrath would have taken it. Three. These are all winnable races in the current environment. With redistricting on the line after the 2020 Census this might be the most import election Democrats have faced in decades. If Progressives and moderates and centrists are motivated, if Republicans disgusted with Trump decide to back moderate Democrats, we could take down a Senate Majority leader, flip the Senate, expand the US House Democratic Majority and take the White House. This election will have more effect on America than any in my lifetime. That’s not hyperbole. Dems hold more seats in the House than Republicans won in 2010, if they gain seats in 2020, and take more control at the state level, and control the redistricting process to force those seats back to being competitively balanced rather than Republican gerrymandered. If they can take the Senate and White House as well, Democrats will be in a position to not only fix the flaws of Obamacare, and expand on its provisions, but they can actually work on legislation on climate and education, and trade, and immigration. This is all down to turn out.

Remember to vote and TAKE a friend with you. If we can’t impeach Trump in 2020, we’ll remove him in November.  We’ll take America back to sanity, to a beacon of hope and stability for the world. A court system that reflects a changing America. An America that will stand with our allies rather than attack them and embracing our enemies.

[wellesleyunderground]

Wellesley in Politics: Interview with Lindsey Boylan ‘06 (@LindseyBoylan), Candidate for NY’s 10th Congressional District

While the much of focus on the 2020 national election has been on the presidential race, there will also be Congressional races taking place across the country in just over a year. Lindsey Boylan ‘06 is one candidate on the ballot for the House of Representatives and is running in the Democratic primary in New York’s 10th Congressional District against long term Congressman Rep. Jerry Nadler. A former College Government President, Boylan received an MBA from Columbia Business School after graduating from Wellesley and previously served as the Director for Business Affairs for Bryant Park as well as the Deputy Secretary for Economic Development and Special Advisor to the Governor for New York State under the Cuomo administration. We reached out to Lindsey to hear more about her campaign and why she is running for Congress. 

Thank you for agreeing to chat with Wellesley Underground! Tell us a little bit about yourself and your career trajectory after graduating from Wellesley in 2006. Who is Lindsey Boylan?

First of all, it’s no exaggeration to say that Wellesley changed the trajectory of my life. I’m deeply proud of my parents who endured all kinds of struggles and gave me the gift of believing in limitless possibilities. My mother would have loved to attend Wellesley herself, but that opportunity wasn’t available to her when she became a single mother at 16, with the birth of my older sister. She really overcame so much over the years. My mom was working multiple jobs, still unable to get by without the help of food stamps when she met my dad, a Marine from Queens. Eventually she went back to school and became an accountant when I was a teenager. She recognized that Wellesley would open the world to me, and it did in so many ways.

The year that I graduated, the activist Jane Jacobs died. Because I read about her life’s work and her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, I fell in love with urban planning and decided to move to New York City. I moved to the Upper West side of Manhattan with no job and less $100 in my bank account, like so many young women who come to this city--- basically not sure how it will all work out, but completely confident that we’ll find a way.

My first job in the city was with urban planner Alex Garvin. I read that he had worked with Jane Jacobs, so I reached out him and basically pestered him until he hired me. From there I went on to oversee Bryant Park. I later got my MBA from Columbia Business School while working full time. That led me to working for New York State, where I served the state as deputy secretary of economic development and special advisor to the governor. I’m very proud of my work for New York State. It’s where I helped secure hundreds of millions of dollars for underfunded public housing in New York and was instrumental in creating new job growth in the state. I was a strong advocate for passing Paid Family Leave; I helped lead the fight for a $15 minimum wage in New York; and I led the state’s efforts to provide assistance for Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria.

In declaring your candidacy for New York’s 10th Congressional district, you would be running against long-term incumbent Rep. Jerry Nadler in the Democratic primary. What is motivating you to run for Congress now and what would you say differentiates you from the incumbent?

Our experiences couldn’t be more different. Jerry originally won his seat in Congress, nearly 30 years ago, when Ted Weiss died the day before the primary election. Nadler was nominated to replace him. As part of “the machine” of New York politics, he hasn’t faced a serious primary challenger because the establishment uses its full force to protect the status quo. He's one of the least productive members of Congress. In almost 30 years in the House, he’s only passed 3 pieces of his own legislation into law — one of which was the renaming of a federal building.

While I’ve pledged not to take a dime of corporate PAC or fossil-fuel industry contributions, corporations fuel Jerry Nadler’s campaign. He operates on the hundreds of thousands of dollars in PAC money from the very industries he regulates in Congress. He’s checked the progressive box on his votes, but actually has little to show for his decades in office. He has not been a leading voice on issues that impact the everyday well-being of New Yorkers. He hasn’t been a champion for mental health, affordable housing, or reducing maternal mortality. There has been no action on climate change despite the fact that a large part of our district is at risk of devastating flooding from storm surges. 

Obviously, in last year’s election we saw both Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ayanna Pressley defeat long-term Congressmen. How much were you influenced by their campaign victories in making the decision to run for the 10th Congressional district seat?

I think we all were inspired by their historic wins. Women, especially women of color, are constantly degraded and pushed to the sidelines, while others make decisions about their lives. Women are sick and tired of others speaking for us. What we need is more seats at the table. For women of all experiences. For mothers too. Representatives Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley’s wins showed us that, despite what the establishment tells us, our time is now. I have been told repeatedly that there’s no point in even running against Jerry Nadler, as if he’s somehow entitled to his seat in Congress. That’s not how democracy works. Women are often told that it’s not the right place or the right time for us. We know that we can’t wait politely for our turn, because if we do, our turn will never come. It reminds me of my favorite quote from Nora Ephron, who said in her 1996 Wellesley commencement address, “Whatever you choose, however many roads you travel, I hope that you choose not to be a lady. I hope you will find some way to break the rules and make a little trouble out there. And I also hope that you will choose to make some of that trouble on behalf of women."

You previously were featured in an article about the growing sentiment that the Democratic party is attempting to crackdown on challengers to incumbents. What do you think your biggest hurdle will be in next year’s election?

Any time you’re running against an intrenched incumbent, it’s really a campaign against “the machine.” Naturally I don’t have the name recognition that Jerry does. The biggest hurdle will be ensuring that my platform and my ideas reach voters. I won’t rest until I’ve met every single person in New York’s 10th District, so they know that this time they have a choice.

Most of New York City is so overwhelmingly Dem that the primary is everything. As long as Democrats fear taking on the establishment, New Yorkers won’t have real options. Being a challenger means that you don’t have access to the financial resources and institutional support of an establishment that will fight with all its power to maintain the status quo. I expect it’s going to be an incredibly hard fight, but I’m a Wellesley woman. I’m prepared.

There will no doubt be a significant amount of attention focused on the 2020 election. How do you plan to effectively share your vision and get voters energized about your campaign during a time when many may be more focused on the presidential election?

I am just as interested in the 2020 presidential campaign - how can I not be? But change can’t happen in this country without the joint effort of the legislative and executive branches. The real impact happens when Congress and the President work together. It’s fantastic when we have a new leader who is passionate, but, as we saw with Obama’s second term, we need fighters in Congress, too, and I plan to be one of New York’s fighters in Congress.

Speaking a little about the issues that matter to you - what would you say are your top three issues of concern? Are you of the opinion that the key issues differ for those living in the Manhattan part of the 10th District compared to those living in Brooklyn?

My priority is to treat housing, healthcare, and education as basic human rights. The district obviously can’t be addressed as a monolith, but all people living in the 10th district, and across America, deserve to live productive, meaningful, and dignified lives. We're facing numerous urgent challenges that need immediate action, among them the climate crisis, gun violence, and the opioid epidemic. Not to mention the assault on our democracy by Trump. One issue which is very important to me, which I don’t hear elected speak about, is mental health. I don’t know anyone whose family hasn’t been affected by mental illness. It’s well past time for mental health to be an equal part of the conversation when we talk about health care. We desperately need to address it on a national level.

As you launch your Congressional campaign, what do you want potential voters to know about the type of leadership you would bring to Congress, if elected?

In Congress, I’ll be guided by my core values as I have been during a life of public service. I will honor my oath without fear of the political ramifications. I won’t just be fighting for the future of my daughter’s generation, but for my mother’s generation and everyone in between.

What advice do you have for Wellesley alums thinking about running for public office either at the very local or national level?

I’d say that when you enter the arena, you’re going to experience what it means to be a Wellesley woman on a new level. You will be overwhelmed by the support from alums, as well as current students--- we have an amazing group of campaign fellows. They’re all very talented and I can’t wait to see them run for office themselves.

One bit of advice that I’ll offer is to develop a strong “kitchen cabinet”, or circle of trusted advisors. You have to trust your gut when you know something is right, but it’s also important to check in with people you hold in high esteem, who challenge your assumptions. If you haven’t read Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin, it’s a great read.

Also, remember to take care of yourself, especially when it seems like there’s no time for that. You are going to want to “yes, and” everything and everyone, but you can’t work 25 hours every day.

Speaking about mental health, particularly as you continue campaigning over the next year, what is your self-care philosophy?

I recommend therapy for everyone, which unfortunately is sometimes easier said than done. There is so much work to be done so that everyone can access quality mental health care. At minimum, create boundaries around what you can and can’t allow to consume your attention. Also know what recharges your battery. Everyone is different. For me, it’s quiet time with my 5-year-old daughter. She’s everything to me. I’m 100% committed to bringing transformative change to New York’s 10th Congressional District, but sometimes you have to take a meeting inside a princess fort. 

__________

For more information about Lindsey, check out her campaign’s website, follow her on Twitter @LindseyBoylan and keep up with her campaign on Instagram @LindseyBoylanNY. 

Interview by Cleo Hereford ‘09

[someguyscaliforniavoterguide]

Select L.A. County Races - November 2018

Select L.A. County Races

Broadly speaking: vote for the Democrat. I am not going to give super detailed explanations for a lot of races unless they are warranted. Where they are, I have footnoted them. I live in the East Valley so a lot of what I looked at was Valley related. I also looked into Santa Monica because Measure SM is a big deal.

State Board of Equalization 3: Tony Vazquez

In 2017, the State Board of Equalization was largely stripped of its powers and duties and gutted from 4800 staffer to 400 staffers. Still, it remains a constitutionally mandated agency that administers Property Taxes, Alcoholic Beverage Taxes, and Taxes on Insurers programs. The point of the board is to ensure that taxes are assessed fairly statewide. Yeah, it’s weird. Anyway, the GOP candidate in the race has used his platform to attack the SB60 Gas Tax (more on this later). Forget that. Tony Vazquez is a former Santa Monica mayor and while his platform for the BOE is thin, it’s better than actively destructive.

Los Angeles County Sheriff: Alex Villanueva

I’m not thrilled about either candidate in this race, to be honest. Both have ties to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) but both pitch themselves as reform candidates who will address years of endemic abuse and corruption within LASD. Neither seems to be up to the job. I’ve heard some people say that Jim McDonnell, the acting sheriff, should be given a chance to put his mark on the department. I have also watched as rank and file have swung to Alex Villanueva as McDonnell has tried to enact reforms. McDonnell has ties to the former sheriff, Lee Baca, who was convicted of obstructing an investigation into jail abuses by the LASD. McDonnell has endorsements from politicians but Villanueva has the support of the local party clubs. It’s really a coin toss for me, but since I’m picking, I guess I’ll go with Villanueva - he’s the slightly more outside candidate for now, and I’ll keep an eye on this for 2022.

Los Angeles County Assessor: Jeffrey Prang

Jeff Prang is endorsed by Kamala Harris and is the incumbent assessor. His opponent is literally listed with the name John “Lower Taxes” Loew on the ballot and couldn’t even get a website together for this election. This is a pretty easy call.

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; Second District

Electing judges is dumb but since we do it, here’s some thoughts. Look: these are all qualified and smart jurists. I base my endorsements here on a mix of reviewing various endorsements with a critical eye to judges who score too high on conservative groups’ questionnaires about judicial philosophy. The L.A. Times endorses “yes” on all these candidates as a show of judicial independence, but I don’t hang with that. Judges make political choices and while I believe we shouldn’t have the power to vote on them, if we do then we might as well use that power to vote for judges who reflect our Democratic values. Certainly the GOP votes for judges that will enact their visions.

Division 1

Helen Bendix: No

Victoria G. Chaney: No

Division 2

Elwood G. Lui: Yes

Victoria Chavez: No

Division 3

Luis A. Lavin: Yes

Hamlin Dhandina: Yes

Anne Egerton: Yes

Division 4

Thomas Willhite: No

Nora Manella: No

Division 5

Lamar W. Baker: Yes

Carl Moor: Yes

Dorothy Kim: Yes

Division 6

Arthur Gilbert: Yes

Martin J. Tangeman: Yes

Division 7

John Segal: Yes

Gail Feuer: Yes

Division 8

Tricia Bigelow: No

Los Angeles Superior Court

Personally, I feel too often we see prosecutors elevated to judgeships, it’s like a pipeline from the DA to the Superior Court. To me, it’s best that a candidate have some sort of judicial experience before they get the post - as a Judge Pro Tem or as a mediator of some kind. All respect to my prosecutor friends out there, but being a judge is a different job. That said, if nobody in the race has that experience - a not uncommon event - it’s worth looking at what else they bring to the table.

Los Angeles Superior Court, Office 4: Veronica Sauceda

Los Angeles Superior Court, Office 16: Patricia “Patti” Hunter  This is the one judicial race that I really want to highlight. Hunter’s opponent - Sydne Michel - has a lot of ties to the gun industry. Her kid and her dog are both named after guns, her husband is an NRA lawyer, and the pro-gun website calguns.net made it clear that voting for her was important to advancing their interests. Vote for Hunter here folks. We don’t need pro-gun voices packing our courts.

Los Angeles Superior Court, Office 60: Holly L. Hancock  I like that Ms. Hancock is a Public Defender - we don’t see enough PDs become judges. 

Los Angeles Superior Court, Office 113: Michael Ribons

California State Senate

SD 18 – Bob Hertzberg  Sen. Hertzberg was officially reprimanded by the California State Senate in March of 2018 for his habit of hugging colleagues and constituents. In accepting the reprimand, Hertzberg stated ”I understand that I cannot control how a hug is received, and that not everyone has the ability to speak up about unwelcome behavior. It is my responsibility to be mindful of this, and to respect the Rules Committee's request to not initiate hugs." SD 20 – Connie Leyva SD 22 – Michael Eng SD 24 – Maria Elena Durazo SD 26 – Ben Allen SD 30 – Holly Mitchell SD 32 – Bob J. Archuleta SD 34 – Tom Umberg

California State Assembly

AD 36 – Steve Fox AD 37 – Monique Limón AD 38 – Christy Smith AD 39 – Luz Rivas AD 41 – Chris Holden AD 43 – Laura Friedman AD 44 – Jacqui Irwin AD 45 – Jesse Gabriel AD 46 – Adrin Nazarian AD 47 – Eloise Reyes AD 48 – Blanca Rubio AD 49 – Ed Chau AD 50 – Richard Bloom AD 51 – Wendy Carrillo AD 52 – Freddie Rodriguez AD 53 – Miguel Santiago AD 54 – Sydney Kamlager AD 55 – Gregg Fritchle AD 56 – Eduardo Garcia AD 57 – Ian Calderon AD 58 – Cristina Garcia AD 59 – Reggie Jones-Sawyer AD 62 – Autumn Burke AD 63 – Anthony Rendon AD 64 – Mike Gipson AD 65 – Sharon Quirk-Silva AD 66 – Al Muratsuchi AD 70 – Patrick O’Donnell

U.S. House of Representatives

CD 23 – Tatiana Matta CD 25 – Katie Hill CD 26 – Julia Brownley CD 27 – Judy Chu CD 28 – Adam Schiff CD 29 – Tony Cardenas Post-2016 I have often wondered what it would take for me to vote to give a seat up to a Republican - is there a figure as odious as Trump in the Democratic party? This is the race that currently comes closest for me. Tony Cardenas - my rep - has been accused of rape and is facing a civil suit from a Jane Doe; he has denied the charge and asked for a House ethics investigation. I’m begrudgingly going to vote for him, but I am hoping he either a) clears his name in the next year, b) steps aside, or c) is faces a legitimate primary because the Dems have to do better than having an accused rapist on the ballot in 2018.  CD 30 – Brad Sherman CD 32 – Grace Napolitano CD 33 – Ted Lieu CD 34 – Jimmy Gomez Kenneth Meija is a longshot Green candidate in this district - I don’t like his take on SB1 and his call to repeal it, but I would imagine a lot of people I respect might disagree with me on him overall.  CD 35 – Norma Torres CD 37 – Karen Bass CD 38 – Linda Sanchez CD 39 – Gil Cisneros CD 40 – Lucille Roybal-Allard CD 43 – Maxine Waters CD 44 – Nanette Barragán CD 47 – Alan Lowenthal

County Measure W: Yes

This is a 2.5¢ per acre parcel tax on impermeable land (i.e. the parts of land that doesn’t absorb water) to raise funds that will be used to fund projects to capture stormwater, clean it, and percolate it into underwater aquifiers. This money would double the amount that the County Flood District (if you’re in L.A. county you’re almost definitely in it, unless you’re north of Palmdale) captures and help us reduce dependence on water from outside sources.

L.A. City Charter Amendment B (Public Bank): Emphatically Yes

This charter amendment would give the city the power to establish a public bank. A public bank is a government owned bank that holds the city’s deposits and can be used to make loans to projects the city supports. North Dakota has a public bank that is extremely profitable and which funds public works projects throughout the state. Additionally, debt service payments and institutional fees can be reduced when the city has its own bank, saving us all in the long run. To be clear: Amendment B would not actually establish a bank - this would take legislative action and involve a lot of detailed analysis and rulemaking. This is just the first step in a long process, but a necessary one.

L.A. City Charter Amendment E (Realign City Election Dates): Yes

This amendment would realign the city’s primary dates to match state primary dates, lowering costs and reducing voter fatigue. We should do this.

LAUSD Charter Amendment EE (Realign LAUSD Election Dates): Yes

This amendment would realign LAUSD’s primary dates to match state primary dates, lowering costs and reducing voter fatigue. We should also do this.

Burbank Measure P (Sales Tax for General Fund): Yes

The city will experience a $20M revenue shortfall, this is a 0.75¢ sales tax to close that gap. Yes, sales taxes are regressive, but until we address Prop 13 its one of the few tools cities have to close budget gaps in California. Vote yes or get ready to see local services cut.  

Burbank Measure QS (Parcel Tax for Schools): Yes

A parcel tax differs from a property tax in that the parcel tax is applied based on a characteristic of the land while a property tax is based on its value. Here, Burbank proposes to tax each piece of improved land at 10¢ per square foot to raise $9M for schools. On a side note, this will require 2/3 of voters to confirm.

Glendale Measure S (Sales Tax for General Fund): Yes

Much like Burbank, Glendale proposes a 0.75¢ sales tax to generate about $30M annually. Vote yes or get ready to see local services cut.

Santa Monica Measure SM (Require Supermajority Council Approval for Floor Area Ratio and Height Limit Changes): NO NO NO NO

This Charter amendment would require 5 of 7 council members to approve any changes to the downtown community plan for ten years. Folks, this is slow growth nonsense. The city charter already requires a majority vote to approve any changes, requiring a supermajority simply makes it more difficult to address any projects that might be slightly out of compliance. Don’t make it harder to build things.

Santa Monica Measure TL (Term Limits for Council Members): No

This would limit any council member to three terms, whether consecutive or not. I just fundamentally disagree with the idea of term limits, and encourage you to vote no on this.