Candace Valenzuela Wins the Primary

In Defying the Odds, we discuss state and congressional elections as well as the presidential race.

Suzanne Gamboa at NBC:

Candace Valenzuela stands to become the first Black Latina elected to Congress and just the third Latina elected from Texas.

Valenzuela won a Democratic primary runoff Tuesday in the state's 24th Congressional District against retired Air Force Col. Kim Olson and will face Republican Beth Van Duyne, the former mayor of Irving, in the general election.

Democrats consider the seat to be one of their best pickup opportunities in November.
Valenzuela's mother is Mexican American, and her father is Black. She was the first in her family to graduate from college, and she became an educator, working as a special needs teacher. Like many other Latinos, she started her political career on the school board, in Farmers Branch.

During the runoff, she had many high-profile endorsements including civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and four Democratic presidential candidates: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Julian Castro.

The district is rapidly changing. Incumbent Kenny Marchant (R) barely cleared 50 percent in 2018 and announced his retirement in the 2020 cycle.

NEW: @DCCC polling in #TX24 shows @candacefor24 +6 on Beth Van Duyne, Biden +6 in the district. pic.twitter.com/ignU00tiC5

— Avery Jaffe (@averyjaffe) July 15, 2020

Her biographical video was an all-time great:

Portside Organizing

Joe Garofoli reports at the SF Chronicle:

Susan Campodonico hadn’t been out on the street protesting since the Vietnam War. But there she was, standing in front of the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland on a Tuesday afternoon, holding a neon green sign that read: “Honk for single payer NOW!”

She credits her presence to “Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda.” Modeled on the success of the conservative Tea Party, the 24-page step-by-step activist playbook has exploded since it went online three months ago. It’s been downloaded almost 2 million times since then by people who want to interrogate Republicans like Rep. Tom McClintock at a town hall in Mariposa or goad Democrats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein into attending one in Oakland.

What started out as some congressional staffers sharing organizing tips has mushroomed into an organization that has inspired small, autonomous groups across the nation. Not surprisingly, many of the 5,802 “Indivisible”-inspired groups have emerged in the predominantly liberal Bay Area — 200 across six congressional districts.
...
Indivisible is just one of the political startups working to channel that liberal anxiety in the current political landscape. Others, like Sister District Project, Flippable, Swing Left and the Resurgent Left, are focused on showing progressives how to campaign in red Congressional districts or state races where their help and cash will be needed.

Ceaser on Progressivism

At The Weekly Standard, James W. Ceaser writes:

Modern progressivism has driven much of American politics for the past seven years. It now fully owns the Democratic party. President Obama failed to achieve the general electoral realignment that many anticipated after 2008, but he succeeded in creating an ideological realignment within his own party. The result was attained by subtraction. Advocates of rival positions — New Democrats, "blue dogs," pro-lifers — were either sacrificed or induced to sacrifice themselves. The Democratic party is now divided between a progressive wing and a more progressive wing, one that openly wears the label of socialist.

Filling Gaps in the White House Website, Part 72

From an interview with NPR's Michel Martin:

MARTIN: ...and you're willing to give up on some things that are important to other Democrats, to progressives. But what about — what is your message to Democrats — and perhaps I should say progressives — who say that the most vulnerable people in this country have already suffered too much in recent years and gotten too little?

OBAMA: Well, I think what's absolutely true is, is that core commitments that we make to the most vulnerable have to be maintained. And so a lot of the spending cuts that we're making should be around areas like defense spending, as opposed to food stamps. I do think that when it comes to entitlements, when we're talking about Social Security and Medicare, that those aren't entitlement programs where people aren't contributing; it would be that they are social insurance programs that people have been making contributions to, and they are the most important part of our social safety net so that when people retire, they can retire with dignity and respect.

What is true is that given the rising number of seniors, and given the huge escalation in health-care costs, that if we don't structure those programs so that they are sustainable, then it's going to be hard for the next generation to enjoy those kinds — same kinds of benefits. And so we are going to have to make some modest changes that retain the integrity of the program, but make sure that they're there for years to come. And that's not even just a deficit problem, that's a — a step that even if we were all Democrats up here on Capitol Hill, we'd have to start making, to make sure that the integrity of those programs are preserved.

A Dubious Survey

A new study from the Center for American Progress purports to show "the state of American political ideology." It rests on a survey that asked Americans to comment on 40 statements "about government and society split evenly between progressive and conservative beliefs." For each statement, respondents answered on a scale ranging from "totally agree" to "totally disagree."


Unfortunately, the survey instrument is fatally flawed. Take the following statement: "Government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America’s long-term economic growth." For this statement, "totally agree" purportedly represents the liberal or "progressive" position, and "totally disagree" represents the conservative position. There are a couple of problems with the item. First, the word "investment" is spin-speak for "spending," a rhetorical device to increase agreement. Second, the dichotomy makes no sense. The issue between liberals and conservatives is not whether government should support education, infrastructure, and science. It has done so since the Founding era. Rather, the two sides part company on other questions:

• Should the federal government or the states take the lead role?
• How much should each level spend?
• What is the appropriate mix of controls and incentives?

For another statement, "Changes in the traditional American family have harmed our society" the study asserts that conservatives "totally agree" and liberals "totally disagree." Really? Divorce has changed the traditional American family, but does any sensible liberal regard this change as beneficial?

The study poses a good question: how has the ideological landscape changed? Alas, it does not offer a coherent answer.