Trump Admin Can Get Its Jew List

A federal district court has agreed to enforce the EEOC's request for a list of Jewish-affiliated individuals at the University of Pennsylvania, rejected an attempt by Penn and various stakeholders (including Penn's Jewish Law Students association) to quash the subpoena. You can read Judge Gerald Pappert's opinion here.

On the legal question, the judge's decision is justifiable. The standard for issuing a subpoena in this context is very low, and under normal circumstances there are good reasons why the EEOC needs to investigatory power in this domain. Moreover, with one possible exception (which I'll discuss in a minute), I agree the challengers didn't muster much concrete evidence that they would be substantially burdened by the subpoena or that it would impinge on their protected interests.

I was not happy, however, to see the dismissive tone Judge Pappert took towards the challenge, and particular the echoes they raised regarding "Jew lists." He accused the interveners, including the Jewish interveners, of 

significantly rais[ing] the dispute's temperature by impliedly and even expressly comparing the EEOC's efforts to protect Jewish employees from antisemitism to the Holocaust and the Nazis' compilation of 'lists of Jews.' Such allegations are unfortunate and inappropriate. [emphasis original]

Elsewhere, he was disdainful of the interveners notation of ties Trump administration officials have to antisemitic and neo-Nazi organizations, characterizing them as "unserious political arguments, not serious legal ones."

I confess I am quite tired of people lecturing Jews on how inappropriate and unserious we are being when we raise concerns about antisemitism. There is a reason why the Trump administration's request raised echoes of "Jew lists" (a history which, I'd add, is by no means restricted to Nazi Germany) and the Trump administration's well-documented connections to far-right antisemites bolsters those echoes. It is not lying or political opportunism which prompts these fears. The fact that these far-right associations have discredited the Trump administration in the eyes of much of the Jewish community should be seen as an embarrassment for the Trump administration, not a failing on the part of the Jews not understanding who their "protectors" truly are. 

On that note, one might think that, if the EEOC was actually concerned about protecting Penn's Jewish employees from antisemitism, it would respond more empathetically to concerns from many of those very same employees that the EEOC's conduct was making them feel less, rather than more, secure. This is perhaps the paradigmatic arrogance of the Trump administration when it comes to antisemitism -- it dreams of fighting antisemitism without those pesky Jews getting in the way. The court's breezy acceptance of the Trump administration's preferred framing -- of course they're protecting Jewish employees -- is part of this. The Jews don't seem to feel very protected! But that doesn't matter: after all, are we really going to let some Jew tell us how to fight antisemitism?

Again, this is admittedly an objection to tone, and the law is extremely deferential to the EEOC (and I think -- though perhaps regrettably in this specific context -- appropriately so under normal conditions). At the end of the day, historical "echoes" aside, the challengers did not do much to establish much of a credible burden on the subpoena (the claim that Jews would stop praying with the Jewish Law Students Association was extremely speculative, for instance). But the one potential exception I saw was in the EEOC's request to get the information regarding participants in a "listening session" Penn conducted on antisemitism, or who reported instances of antisemitism to the Penn administration. Penn asserted that requiring disclosure of the participants here would deter employees from reporting instances of antisemitism, significantly obstructing Penn's ability to gather information on its campus climate. The court's analysis rejecting this argument was quite thin -- it didn't view the argument as establishing a burden on Penn, and it stated without elaboration that permitting Penn to withhold the names of complainants would simply give it a "weapon" to interfere with the EEOC's investigation.

On this issue, at least, the arguments Penn raised deserved greater attention. I have an article forthcoming that is expressly about how the Trump administration's hyper-aggressive approach to "fighting antisemitism" may in many cases actually serve to deter Jewish students and stakeholders from speaking out on antisemitism. One of my keynote examples is precisely a scenario like this: the student who may wish to attend a "listening session" and give her perspective on the campus climate for Jewish students. She nonetheless may decline to participate so if she knows that her remarks might become grist for a MAGA war on her university. There are many students, one imagines, who might have concerns they wish to raise, but do not want to make a (literal) federal case out of them -- particularly in the present moment, where they know that a "federal case" could mean catastrophic funding cuts for her department or arrests and deportations of her classmates. 

This chilling effect is only enhanced by the clear propensity of the Trump administration to gleefully and overtly run roughshod over the will of the Jewish students it is nominally "protecting" -- she knows full well that even a loud and unambiguous objection will not even reduce, let alone eliminate, the risk that her words and participation will be conscripted into a destructive project she abhors. In that context, it is very likely she will elect not to participate, to her detriment and to the detriment of the university which earnestly wishes to provide a space where it can hear testimony on these issues.

Again, on the law this still may a close question -- we simply aren't well-equipped right now to handle situations where a substantial portion of group the EEOC claims to be "protecting" believes that the EEOC is in fact an adversary (and that the EEOC's very investigation "on their behalf" is a component of its antagonistic campaign). So maybe even here, the information must be disclosed.

But the concerns here are legitimate ones. They are not inappropriate, they are not unserious, they are not simply the raising of political hackles. Jews have good reason for their concerns here and good reasons to mistrust what the EEOC is up to; that's true regardless of how the legal argument should play out.

In Trump's first term, we went through a similar situation to this following reports that the administration was classifying Jews as a distinct "national origin" so as to qualify Jews for protection under Title VI. This was not a novel decision -- it's roots dated back to both the Bush and Obama administration -- but in the context of this administration it raised serious worries by many Jews that Trump was trying to position us as foreign, of another "nation", and thus not truly American. I wrote then that "The fight against discrimination requires judgment—but many Jews don’t trust this administration to exercise it appropriately."

That mistrust has only grown, and only grown more justified, in the present moment. Perhaps a trustworthy administration would not garner such an intense backlash if it sought information about Jewish community members in the context of an ongoing antisemitism investigation. But Jews are not obligated to trust this administration. And whatever the right result was on the formal legal question, it was unnecessary and fundamentally improper for Judge Pappert to deride the basis for our mistrust.

Josh Shapiro Would Make a Fine VP and Probably Shouldn't Be Picked

There's a job opening for the position of Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, and a list of possibilities is beginning to emerge. The main names I've seen floated are Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois Governor, J.B. Pritzker, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

As far as I'm concerned, all of these are fine choices. None of them are blue dog quasi-GOPers. None of them are DSA-adjacent fire breathers. They're all solid, mainline Democrats with a lot to offer. Anecdotally, the name that seems to get the most enthusiasm in my circles is Senator Kelly; a poll of DNC delegates gave a plurality to Shapiro (albeit lagging significantly behind "undecided").

With respect to Shapiro, the case in favor is pretty obvious. He stomped to victory in the keystone key swing state of Pennsylvania in 2022, and remains quite popular in what is still a battleground state. He's generally done a good job a governor, and his out-and-proud Jewishness not only helps dissipates bad faith GOP grandstanding about protecting the Jews, it has also provoked plenty of "show us how you really feel" antisemitism on the part of Republicans whose love for "Jews" is matched only by their hatred for (actual, real-life) Jews. Plus, he provides a model of liberal religiosity which helps challenge the monopoly right-wing conservative Christians have sought to claim over the mantle of faith. It will not surprise you that I like Shapiro a lot, and his was the first name that came to mind for me when I thought of my preferred VP choice.

Unfortunately, Shapiro also seems to be getting the most amount of pushback of any VP contender from the single-issue (anti-)Israel voter crowd, who have tagged Shapiro has having an especially problematic pro-Israel outlook.

The entire dynamic surrounding the Biden-to-Harris switch and how it relates to the burbling pro-Palestinian sentiment amongst many younger Democrats is interesting. Over the past few months we saw quite a few people loudly aver they could never bring themselves to vote for "genocide Joe" because of the way in which he and his administration have enabled Israel's assault in Gaza. The closer we got to election day, the higher stakes this game of chicken became -- will they blink or will they actually usher in Trump 2.0 -- but now that Biden is off the ballot many of these persons seem to be happy to return to the Democratic column. Now, objectively speaking, Kamala Harris is part of the Biden administration and, minor rhetorical gestures aside, has not meaningfully separated herself from Biden's Israel policy -- if you genuinely believe that the Biden administration's policy regarding Israel is monstrous and unforgivable, Harris, as the second-highest ranking official in that administration, should be tainted too. Practically speaking, though, not having Biden be the name on the ballot has offered people who had perhaps overindulged in self-righteous chest thumping and consequently talked themselves into a corner a face-saving offramp. If they were fully genuine in what they say they believe about the Biden administration's choices being "unforgivable",* they'd be equally indignant about voting for Harris. That they're not suggests there was no small measure of performance going on, but for my part, I'm happy not to look a gift horse in the mouth. Welcome back.

But while this cadre may be willing to let bygones be bygones with Harris, many of them have seemingly decided that Shapiro is going to be the stand-in for the type of pro-Israel Democrat they cannot stand. Part of me recoils at this. Shapiro's positions actually don't seem that far off-line from those of his peers (he enforced an anti-BDS law that also exists in 37 other states?!?), and the effort to try and draw distinctions from how he has spoken of, e.g., antisemitism at pro-Palestine protests compared to how other analogous Democrats have spoken about it feels very thin. To be honest, the congealing anti-Shapiro backlash smacks of a very predictable and unlovely hyperpolicing of Jews-qua-Jews on Israel, whose every jot and tittle on the matter will be pored over with exacting and unforgiving scrutiny in a manner that just isn't imposed upon non-Jews. Non-Jews can have unacceptable positions on Israel, but only Jews become unacceptable for things like "her book has an Israeli in it." Shapiro is getting heightened scrutiny here not because his positions on Israel are significantly different from those of Kelly or Beshear or Cooper, but because he's a very visibly Jewish politician and so is presumed to need greater scrutiny.

That's not good. But even though it's not good, I think that for better or for worse it does give a good reason not to pick Shapiro as Harris' VP. Under circumstances where there are many good choices for the VP candidate, the fact that one in particular runs the risk of cheesing off a substantial contingent of wavering Democratic voters is reason enough not to choose him, regardless of whether the reason he runs that risk is "fair" or not. It'd be different if we were in a situation where there was a dearth of good options, or Shapiro was somehow the obvious best choice, or if the "anti-Shapiro" cadre was declaring itself ready to fight to the death over every remotely plausible mainstream Democratic choice or trying to sabotage any potential VP who wasn't all in on BDS. But we're not in that situation. The other Democratic alternatives to Shapiro are also good. Their positions on Israel are probably not that meaningfully distinct from Shapiro's. If I'm happy with a lot of people, and some people whose votes matter are particularly unhappy with one person, there's little reason not to pick someone that makes us all happy.

Throughout this electoral cycle, people in my position have insisted to fellow progressives that the importance of winning in 2024 is too important to take one's ball and go home the instant things don't go your way. That applies here too, but what it means right now -- when no VP has been picked -- is that it'd be unreasonable for me to die on the hill of picking Josh Shapiro for VP, even if I think he'd be a good pick, and even if I think the rationale upon which people are anti-Shapiro is wrongheaded or even pernicious. I may well be right. But winning in 2024 is more important than vindicating my correctness is. If Shapiro gets picked, I'll happily rally behind him and I hope everyone else does too. But there's no shame in Kamala Harris picking someone else if she thinks they will do a better job uniting the progressive community towards the goal of winning this November.

* On that note, I'll give, if not credit, then at least points for consistency to Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who is one of the few Democrats who self-consciously declined to endorse Harris following Biden's withdrawal. Agree with it or not, her position was not a performance.

The Infantilization of the American Right Continues

Scott Lemieux has a good post overviewing and refuting claims that Democrats are responsible for Republicans nominating neo-fascist extremists like Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania. The argument in favor is that some Democrats have spent money on ads which supposedly "boosted" Mastriano over his primary foes. This, critics continue, is recklessly irresponsible insofar as Mastriano is, again, a far-right lunatic whose presence within a country mile of levers of power would be an existential threat to democracy. 

The problem with this argument is that the ads in question are attack ads against Mastriano. They are clear and forthright that Mastriano is a neo-fascist extremist who represents an existential threat to democracy. They nonetheless "boost" him because Republicans like all of these things. But that's a problem with Republicans, not Democrats. As one commentator pointed out, it's one thing to run an ad that lies about the health benefits of poison -- if people ingest the poison, that's on you. It's another thing to run an ad that says "poison is dangerous!" only to witness scores of people say "actually, I love poison, I'm going to take a double dose!" That's on them.

The fact of the matter is that anti-democratic fascist flirtations are an overwhelmingly popular position amongst the GOP primary electorate. Mastriano's closest contender in the GOP primary was Lou Barletta, who is himself a far-right figure with a history of White supremacy. There was no constituency amongst Republicans for a non-poisonous figure, so Democrats hardly committed some foul by trying to inform the general electorate of who Doug Mastriano is.

Lemieux's post covers pretty much all I want to say. All I'll add is that we're just seeing the extension of the infantilization of the American right; perhaps the defining feature of American conservatism over the past six years. Republicans make terrible choices and then whine that Democrats aren't better babysitters. But that's not the job of Democrats. Republicans are adults, they can make their own choices, and they are consciously choosing to promote candidates with Nazi ties and fascist sympathies. That's bad. That's also their own decision, and trying to fob responsibility off onto Democrats is pathetic.

What Went On Downballot Tonight

A bunch of states held primaries today, but for the most part they weren't too interesting. The biggest news by far was the defeat of White supremacist (and former Ted Cruz presidential campaign chair) Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, who was ousted by State Sen. Randy Feenstra. While this probably locks the normally solid red seat up for the GOP (unless King runs as an independent), most progressives still cheered the defeat of the most avowedly racist member of Congress.

Aside from that, though, there were very few marquee races. Incumbents won, generally quite handily. Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D), who defeated former Rep. Elijah Cummings' widow in a special election a few months ago, repeated the feat in tonight's primary to win the Democratic nomination in Maryland's 7th congressional district. There was some barking by the left at targeting House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, but he crushed a progressive challenger with little trouble. Over in Pennsylvania, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, one of the few House Republicans who still can kinda-sorta gesture at being a moderate, looks like he managed to turn back a challenge from his right -- he's up 56/44 with just over half reporting (this seat will be a Democratic target come November).

So barring major action in the federal races, is there anything worth reporting further down the ballot? Potentially.

Start in Massachusetts, which had two State House special elections tonight. Democrats held the HD-37 in Middlesex, and, perhaps more importantly, flipped a Republican seat (HD-3) in Bristol. This follows on the heels of Democrats flipping two Massachusetts State Senate seats from red to blue a few weeks ago. While this has no immediate impact on the Bay State political arena -- Democrats enjoy commanding leads in both legislative chambers -- it still represents good news. The Bristol seat is one where Democrats have historically done well at the top of the ballot but have struggled in more local races; if voters of this ilk are becoming more solidly blue, that can only be a good thing.

Moving over to New Mexico, where a slate of progressive challengers sought to tackle right-wing incumbent Democrats who had joined Republicans to block reproductive rights legislation. In the State Senate, it looks like at least three Democratic incumbents have been defeated, in the 5th, 28th, and 35th Senate districts. Another two races, the 30th district and the 38th district (where the incumbent is State Senate President Pro Tem Mary Kay Papen) are too close to call. Also in New Mexico, Teresa Leger Fernandez defeated Valarie Plame to become the Democratic nominee for the third congressional district, vacated by Rep. Ben Lujan (D). I'm not sad about this result.

Montana kind of was a New Mexico in reverse, with the state GOP divided between a moderate "Solutions Caucus" wing (which has been working with legislative Democrats and incumbent Democratic Governor Steve Bullock) and a hard-line ".38 Special" group, which views cooperation as an anathema. Members of both groups faced primary challenges from the other wing, and the overall results were mixed.

Right-wing challengers targeted two moderate state Senators as well as ten state Representatives. On the Senate side, they split (ousting the incumbent in the SD-28 but falling short in the SD-10). In the House, they won in the HD-35, HD-37, and HD-68 but lost in the HD-7, HD-14, HD-21, HD-39, HD-70, HD-86 and HD-88. Meanwhile, centrist challengers took on four .38 special incumbents in the state House, defeating two. The moderates prevailed in the HD-9 and HD-75, while the conservative incumbents hung on the HD-10 and HD-11. Overall, close to a wash.

Our final stop tonight is Pennsylvania, where a bunch of Democratic incumbents appear to be in trouble, but I've yet to find a clear story as to why. Well, that's not wholly true -- in the SD-17, the incumbent is facing sexual harassment allegations, which probably has a lot to do with his troubles. But Democratic incumbents are also trailing in the SD-1 (Farnese), HD-20 (Ravenstahl), HD-182 (Sims), HD-185 (Donatucci), HD-188 (Roebuck), and HD-190 (Green). So far, I haven't found a clear through narrative for these races akin to what we're seeing in New Mexico or Montana. Of the endangered incumbents, Sims is probably the highest profile -- he recently went viral after accusing Republican colleagues of hiding a positive coronavirus diagnosis from House Democrats, placing them in danger. A lot of votes are still being tabulated because they were sent by mail, so I've been cautioned that some of the closer races (including Sims') may change.

Oh, one last thing: in Iowa, just one incumbent lost her primary race -- longtime Democratic state Rep. Vicki Lensing was ousted by University of Iowa law professor Christina Bohannan. I have no idea what these means politically, but I'm always happy to see law professors succeed in their life projects.

What Last Night's Election Results Tell Us About 2020

There is a real chance Donald Trump will be re-elected.

I think a lot of Democrats haven't really processed this, in the same way we didn't process the possibility that he could be elected in 2016.

Between viewing the initial election as a fluke, and being buoyed by 2018's "blue wave", it's easy to think that Trump is destined to be a single-term president.

But I'm not sure. And I think some of last night's election results -- specifically, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race (in recount territory, but with the Republican candidate up by about 6,000 votes) and a Pittsburgh-area Pennsylvania state senate special election (a Democratic red-to-blue flip) -- can give us some hints about the 2020 electoral landscape.

Let's start with the basics: it is very likely that Democrats will do worse in 2020 than they did in 2018. Midterm elections often represent high water marks for the opposition party, and a monster performance in 2018 doesn't make 2020 a gimme for Democrats anymore than huge GOP victories in 2010 signaled a defeat for Obama in 2012. One could argue that Democratic constituencies tend to drop off in the midterms, but I think that effect is more than canceled out by the advantages midterms give to the opposition party.

And while Trump remains relatively unpopular, there hasn't been the widespread, broad-based repudiation of him that one might have hoped for were we an actually functioning liberal state -- indeed, his net approval rating has been remarkably stable for the past year at roughly -10 (currently it's 42/53). That's obviously pretty bad, but it's not disastrously so -- it hasn't reached that tipping point where "unpopular" turns into a rout.

So my baseline assumption is that Republicans are likely to overperform compared to 2018, and the question is how much Democrats can arrest that trend.

Begin by looking at Wisconsin. If 2018 gave us a narrow Democratic victory in the marquee statewide match up (the Governor's race), that doesn't give us a lot of breathing room in 2020. And lo and behold, the statewide race in 2019 -- a pivotal one, since it effectively determines the partisan composition of the court ahead of 2020 redistricting -- ends up yielding what looks like a squeaker GOP victory. And this was an election where the Democratic nominee had a lot of institutional support (including a massive spending edge), whilst the Republican had been hammered for anti-LGBT views.

This, to me, bodes poorly for 2020. In my "trendlines" post assessing the political movement of each (well, most) states, I put a big ol' question mark next to Wisconsin, and this is part of the reason why. Yes, beating Scott Walker felt great. But barely doing it in a year like 2018 actually wasn't that great a sign. Given Minnesota's increasingly-reddish tilt (albeit from a bluer base), it was hard to imagine that its more conservative neighbor would be more favorable, on net, to the Democratic Party in the immediate future.

A similar problem afflicts Florida. It was perhaps the only "swing" state where Republicans didn't see any drop off in support from 2016 to 2018. So it's hard to imagine that it will be friendlier turf for Democrats in 2020, where they're almost certainly going to have less momentum than they did in the midterms.

That's the bad news. Onto the better news: the Pennsylvania result. This was the first red-to-blue special election flip in 2019, and it was a good one to get -- and not just because it puts the Pennsylvania State Senate in play in 2020.  Of all the "blue wall" states that weren't in 2016, Pennsylvania to me seems the most likely to return to the Democratic column in 2020 -- and obviously that's a must-win state for the Democratic Party. And results like this show that Democrats are solidifying their appeal in districts like this one (suburban, recently light-red, well-educated, etc.). That bodes well for Democratic performance even outside of Pennsylvania where there is a considerable cache of voters in districts that share this profile.

So that's the good news. But where does that leave us? Suppose Wisconsin and Florida go red, and Pennsylvania and (we'll say) Michigan return to team blue. If everything else holds (including Trump sniping an electoral vote off Maine), that's still a 270-268 GOP victory. If Maine goes blue down the line, then it's a tie.

Where could Democrats pick up another state? The place where they've seen the best recent trendline is Arizona, followed by maybe North Carolina. But as heartening as Arizona's recent blue-ish shift has been, do you really want to hinge our presidential prospects on a Democratic winning Arizona for just the second time since 1952?

I actually think the popular vote -- for what that's worth, which is basically nothing -- is in good shape for Democrats, if only because of the huge Democratic margins we're likely to see in California. But the electoral college is a different story. The fact is, the tea leaves aren't looking good for Democrats winning either Florida or Wisconsin in 2020, and without those two states the map suddenly looks really, really difficult.

What's Going On in Lancaster?

My social media was ablaze today with reports that a Jewish family had "fled" their home in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania over false reports by Fox and Breitbart that they were responsible for the canceling of a school Christmas play. Local news also reports their children had been harassed by classmates due to the report. But the ADL investigated and said that the family had simply left on a previously scheduled vacation, and that the claims that they "fled" are a panic-inducing fiction. What's going on?

Unfortunately, the original local story is behind a paywall so I can't read it. My suspicion is that the real story is something like the following:

1. The children experienced some harassment over the false reports that their family was responsible for canceling the play (this part of the original reporting does not appear to be in dispute, though the ADL does not address it).
2. The family had a previously-scheduled vacation, and expressed some sentiment to the effect of it being nice to have some time away to allow things to cool down.
3. Overzealous journalists took #2 and elevated/amplified it until it became the overblown claim that the family had "fled" town.

Of course, that's speculation on my part. Without access to the original story or more robust follow-up reporting, we won't know.

Revolutionary Fervor

One of the more stressful things about being a graduate student, or other aspiring academic, is the constant refrain that there isn't necessarily a job waiting for you at the end. It's an exceptionally tight market right now, and many extremely smart and qualified candidates won't end up with a position. It can get a bit wearying. And it can get a bit infuriating when you see who has gotten these oh-so-rare positions:

An American college professor was arrested by Miami-Dade police on Saturday for launching into an extended rant about Venezula and smoking on an airplane, all of which was captured on video.

Karen Halnon, identified as an associate professor of sociology at Penn State, was on an American Airlines flight from Nicaragua to Miami, according to television station WFOR.

“The United States has declared war on Venezuela,” Halnon repeated throughout the video, which was posted to YouTube as a clip titled "Crazy woman on a plane."

“Venezuela has been declared a national security threat," she repeated on the video.

"You're a national security threat," another passenger shot back.

Halnon later told WFOR that she was returning from a trip to Nicaragua working with single mothers and felt the need to talk to people about the destructiveness of U.S. imperialism.

On the tape, she eventually unbuckled her seatbelt as passengers around her groaned.

"My great hero Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil supply," she said. Halnon was then informed by a flight attendant that the police would be arresting her shortly.

Oh lord. You "felt the need" to go on a bender about the joys of your favorite autocrat? Which do you prefer -- his paeons to Carlos the Jackal and Idi Amin, or his penchant for jailing judges he dislikes? To quote Ron White, "next time you have a thought, just let it go."

Oh, but it gets better:

At one point, Halnon calmly lit a cigarette as the passenger next to her got up and left.

"This girl's a gangster," another onlooker said.

Hanlon confirmed to WFOR that she indeed lit a cigarette on the plane.

“I took a few puffs out of it," she said. "Every other revolutionary smokes. Fidel. Daniel Ortega. Tomás Borge. Che Guevara."

"Every other revolutionary smokes"? What are you, twelve years old? This is a joke.

In any event, if you're a sociology graduate student wondering who's getting the job you so desperately want, here's your answer. Blergh.

Throw the Jew Down the Well!

A Pennsylvania state Republican conference is in hot water after a band playing at the event started spouting lyrics like "We’re fighting the corruption of the Jewish banks but when the Jews come to feed us, we always say thanks."

The band apparently was trying to satirize the Occupy Wall Street movement which ... I dunno, maybe? That the OWS is targeting "Jewish banks" is little more than a smear, but it's one I've heard of so it makes sense that it'd appear in the fever swamp a respected gathering of Pennsylvania Republicans. But that second part refers to ... what exactly? Jewish philanthropy? Prominent Jewish membership and in support for OWS? I have no idea.

The Dems Big Night

Jon Chait is right. Tonight was an excellent night for Democrats. We held the PA-12 (special election to fill John Murtha's seat) -- not too shabby, given that the district was the only one in the country to vote for Kerry in 2004 but McCain in 2008. Joe Sestak is, I think, a more formidable opponent for Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania. Bill Halter pushed Blanche Lincoln to a run-off, which I believe he'll win -- it's a push as to whether this helps or hurts (not so hot) Democratic chances to retain the seat (Halter isn't an incumbent, which is good, but he's also quite liberal for Arkansas), but in a coin-flip environment I'd prefer the more liberal of two options. Finally, the Kentucky race ended up exactly as one would want it, with AG Jack Conway pulling the Democratic nod to face Tea Partier Rand Paul -- by far the most favorable match-up possible in the Bluegrass State.

So yeah. Good night.

Hush That Sarcasm

Ta-Nehisi Coates sarcastically wonders why none of his commenters wrote "THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!11"

But while it maybe isn't excellent news for her, Publius does eruditely point out that in many ways, we have Hillary Clinton's decision to prolong her primary campaign to thank for Specter's defection:

Today’s flip further vindicates Clinton’s decision to fight it out to the bitter end in last year’s primary. Looking back, nothing but positives came out of that contest. As I’ve explained before, the primary had an “anti-Tasmanian Devil” effect – rather than chaos, it left stronger party organization and big increases of registered voters in its wake.

And it’s that structural shift that doomed Specter. He couldn’t afford to lose hundreds of thousands of moderate PA Republicans.

This aspect of Specter's decision reconfirms one of the secrets of Obama’s electoral success. People point to the charisma and “hope and change” business. And that’s all fine. But we shouldn’t overlook Obama’s emphasis on nitty-gritty, massive organizing efforts (great article on those efforts here). Obama won with a lot of elbow grease and planning – it wasn’t because of speeches. The “old” politics of organization and registration made the “new” politics possible.

If Hillary hadn't stayed in the race, all those new registrations (and more importantly, registration switches from GOP to Dem) probably wouldn't have happened. If they hadn't have happened, Specter probably could have won a GOP primary, and would never have switched.

So, nice work, Hillary Clinton. You just got us a Senate seat. The Party thanks you.

Specter to Pull a Lieberman?

MyDD has the scoop on an intriguing possibilities. Now Republicans get to have the fun of mediating between a rabid and infuriated base and preserving a much-needed Senate seat!

Ridge for VP?

CNN reports that former Pennsylvania Governor and head of the Department of Homeland Security Tom Ridge would consider being a VP if asked by the McCain campaign. The article focuses on Ridge's pro-choice stance as the primary stumbling block with GOP voters. But my thoughts more run along the lines of: "wasn't he a catastrophe as head of the DHS?" Now, this could be mistaken. I could be confusing him with other Bush administration appointees (incompetence is a pretty widely shared character trait, so it's a solid bet). I could be over-estimating the degree to which incompetence is a bar to GOP voters (likely). But still, it strikes me as not the wisest choice available to McCain (personally, I think Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is the best choice -- I'm not even sure what his downside is supposed to be).

So Much on So Little

I have to say, I am thrilled that Pennsylvania is finally voting. It seems like an age since the last primary or caucus, and the press has already shown it has the attention span of a three-year old and that without the immediate specter of horse races to analyze or polls to parse, it will mindlessly pursue the first shiny object that catches its attention. So, if only for giving us a temporary respite from questions like "Is Rev. Jeremiah Wright as patriotic as Barack Obama?" (wtf?), thank you Pennsylvania.

That being said, this is a totally meaningless primary. There is no likely outcome which could seriously change the dynamics of the race.

Let's break it down. Barring something cataclysmic, Clinton cannot win the Democratic primary. She is expected to win Pennsylvania solidly, but the models all have incorporated that prediction and it isn't enough. A huge win -- say, 25 points -- might qualify as cataclysmic, but that's not going to happen. On the reverse side, while most people consider anything less than a 7-point win for Clinton to be a mortal wound to her campaign, she's not going to withdraw after winning Pennsylvania, so even a narrow victory won't push her out. Obama would have to score an exceedingly improbable upset (or maybe lose by just 1 or 2 points) for there to be any hope of Clinton exiting the race.

In absence of those two exceedingly unlikely scenario, the state of the Democratic race will be the exact same tomorrow as it was yesterday: Clinton remains in with only a negligible shot to win. Never has so much been said about a race with such little import.

But We're Elites! We Know Everything!

In the wake of the Barack Obama "bitter" controversy, specifically the stunning revelation that it did not actually hurt him in the Pennsylvania polls, Daniel Drezner offers multiple potential reasons for the discrepancy between what the media elite said would happen and, well, reality:

A) Gun-toting, small-town Jesus-worshippers are so bitter that they don't watch cable news outlets;

B) Gun-toting, small-town Jesus-worshippers are so bitter that they aren't likely to show up as "likely voters" in a poll;

C) Gun-toting, small-town Jesus-worshippers are so bitter that their phone service has been cut off;

D) Gun-toting, small-town Jesus-worshippers are so bitter that they dislike Hillary Clinton even more than Barack Obama;

E) The commentariat is elitist and out of touch with what engages gun-toting, small-town Jesus-worshippers.

I always thought the most elitist act in this whole ordeal was a bunch of beltway strategists essentially demanding to rural Pennsylvanians: "You will vote on this, peasants!"

Casey for Obama

Obama picks up a huge endorsement in Pennsylvania from Governor Senator Bob Casey. This is important not just because Casey is obviously a big name in the state, but because he's a very credible figure among the White, working-class voters with whom Obama has struggled. Obama will hold his big city base in Philadelphia -- it all comes down to how much he can penetrate into Clinton territory mid-state and out towards Pittsburgh. Casey's endorsement is definitely a boon towards those efforts.

The Mayor of Hazelton

Lou Barletta, mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania, was launched onto the political map by ramming through some of the most draconian anti-immigrant policies during his tenure. Here, via the Washington Post, are some of the highlights (this article, by the way, is from last August):

Last month, in a raucous meeting, the mayor and City Council passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. (Barletta wore a bulletproof vest because, he says, Hazleton is menaced by a surge in crime committed by illegal immigrants.) The act imposes a $1,000-per-day fine on any landlord who rents to an illegal immigrant, and it revokes for five years the business license of any employer who hires one.

The act also declares English to be the city's official language. Employees are forbidden to translate documents into another language without official authorization.

But as the law began to get publicized, Barletta began to have some regrets. It appeared that, in actuality, immigrants of all stripes were important members of the Hazelton community. Even before the law came into effect, Barletta ruefully reported, "some Mexican restaurants say business is off 75 percent" as the town's Latino population packed up.

Haha, I kid! Not about the downturn from Mexican restaurants. That actually happened. I'm kidding that Barletta was rueful about it. Nope -- that was the example he cited to prove the law was working!

The law doesn't take effect for another month. But the Republican mayor already sees progress. "I see illegal immigrants picking up and leaving -- some Mexican restaurants say business is off 75 percent," Barletta says. "The message is out there."

Anyway, Reason Magazine's Hit & Run blog reports that Barletta is mulling a run for Congress in Pennsylvania's 11th District against Democratic incumbent Paul Kanjorski. It would be a reprise of their 2002 contest, which Kanjorski won by 14 points.

It's testament to the degree of anti-immigrant psychosis that has infected so much of American politics that a man who brags about driving businesses out of his own town is expected to be more competitive this time around than he was in 2002 -- a good year for Republicans overall.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link