More from that poll. Reason #4 is correlated to “new” and “job performance”.

The Republican party is terrible. So why may Democrats lose to them this year?

Much of today’s Republican party is treacherous and treasonous. So why are Democrats facing midterm elections that, according to most political observers, they’re likely to lose?

Having been a loyal Democrat for some 70 years, including a stint as a cabinet secretary, it pains me to say this: the Democratic party has lost its way.

Some commentators think Democrats have moved too far to the left – too far from the so-called “center.” This is utter rubbish. Where’s the center between democracy and authoritarianism, and why would Democrats want to be there?

Others think Biden hasn’t been sufficiently angry or outraged. But what good would that do? After four years of Trump, why would anyone want more anger and outrage?

As Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg concluded after the 2016 election: “Democrats don’t have a ‘white working-class’ problem. They have a ‘working-class problem’, which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly. The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate.”

The working class used to be the bedrock of the Democratic party. What happened?

During the first two years of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, they scored some important victories for working families: the Affordable Care Act, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example.

But they also allowed the middle class to hollow out and the working class to sink.

Clinton passed free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who consequently lost their jobs a means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

His North American Free Trade Agreement and plan for China to join the World Trade Organization undermined the wages and economic security of manufacturing workers across America, hollowing out vast swaths of the Rust Belt.

Clinton also deregulated Wall Street. This led to the financial crisis of 2008 – in which Obama bailed out the biggest banks and bankers but did nothing for homeowners, many of whom owed more on their homes than their homes were worth.

Obama didn’t demand as a condition for the bailout that banks refrain from foreclosing on underwater homeowners. Nor did Obama demand an overhaul of the banking system. Instead, he allowed Wall Street to water down attempts at re-regulation.

Both Clinton and Obama stood by as corporations hammered trade unions. They failed to reform labor laws to allow workers to form unions with a simple up-or-down majority vote, or even to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violated labor protections.

Biden has supported labor law reform but hasn’t fought for it, leaving the Protecting the Right to Organize (Pro) Act to die inside his ill-fated Build Back Better Act.

Clinton and Obama allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify, enabling large corporations to grow far larger and major industries to become more concentrated. Biden is trying to revive antitrust enforcement but hasn’t made it a centerpiece of his administration.

Both Clinton and Obama depended on big money from corporations and the wealthy. Both turned their backs on campaign finance reform.

Obama was the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon to reject public financing in his primary and general election campaigns, and he never followed up on his re-election promise to pursue a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United vs FEC, the 2010 supreme court opinion opening the floodgates to big money in politics.

Joe Biden has tried to regain the trust of the working class, but Democratic lawmakers (most obviously and conspicuously, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema) have blocked measures that would have lowered the costs of childcare, eldercare, prescription drugs, healthcare, and education. They’ve blocked a higher minimum wage and paid family leave.

Yet neither Manchin nor Sinema nor any other Democrat who has failed to support Biden’s agenda has suffered any consequences.

Why hasn’t Biden done more to rally the working class and build a coalition to grab back power from the emerging oligarchy? Presumably for the same reasons Clinton and Obama didn’t: the Democratic party continues to prioritize the votes of “suburban swing voters” who supposedly determine electoral outcomes, and it still depends on money from big corporations and the wealthy.

The most powerful force in American politics today is anti-establishment fury at a rigged system. There is no longer a left or right. There is no longer a moderate “center”. The real choice is either Republican authoritarian populism or Democratic progressive populism.

Democrats cannot defeat authoritarian populism without an agenda of radical democratic reform – a pro-democracy, anti-establishment movement. Democrats must stand squarely on the side of working people against oligarchy. They must form a unified coalition of people of all races, genders, and classes to unrig the system.

Trumpism is not the cause of our divided nation. It is the symptom of a rigged system that was already dividing us.

California cities ban new gas stations in battle to combat climate change

Without realizing they were starting a movement in green energy policy, leaders of a small Sonoma Valley city seem to have done just that when they questioned the approval process for a new gas station — eventually halting its development and others in the future.

“We didn’t know what we were doing, actually,” said Petaluma Councilwoman D’Lynda Fischer, who led the charge last year to prohibit new gas stations in the city of 60,000. “We didn’t know we were the first in the world when we banned gas stations.”

Since Petaluma’s decision, four other cities in the Bay Area have followed suit, and now, leaders in California’s most car-centric metropolis are hoping to bring the climate-conscious policy to Southern California.

It opens a new front in California’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions and already is generating opposition from the fuel industry, which argues consumers would suffer.

“It’s really up to cities to turn around climate change,” said Andy Shrader, director of environmental affairs for Los Angeles City Councilman Paul Koretz, who proposed L.A. work toward its own ban on new gas stations. While the motion hasn’t gained traction, Shrader and other council leaders expect a hearing on the matter this summer.

“L.A.’s enormous and damaging ecological footprint really helped set us on this path,” Shrader said at a recent conference about gas station prohibitions across California. “If you have lung cancer, you stop smoking; if your planet’s on fire, you stop pouring gasoline on it.”

While Petaluma officials at the time called its new gas pump ban “completely uncontroversial,” it’s unclear how such a policy would go over in Los Angeles, a city with about 65 times as many people and a transportation infrastructure that still heavily relies on vehicles. Lobbyists for gas stations said they will oppose the motion in L.A. if it moves forward.

But Koretz said such a ban would better prepare the city for a future that doesn’t rely on fossil fuel-powered vehicles, which California has pledged to stop selling by 2035.

“Given Gov. Newsom’s timeline to end the sale of gas vehicles by 2035, gas stations are a dying business,” Koretz said. “Their toxic chemicals take years and millions of dollars to clean up.”

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, about half of the nation’s 450,000 brownfields — sites containing hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants — is property compromised by the presence or potential presence of petroleum, much of it leaking from old gas stations.

Koretz’s proposal — which calls on the city to continue “leading the way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution” — would task city officials to draft an ordinance to prohibit any new fossil-fuel pumps in the city and require that “any expansions of current gas stations to be limited to serving zero-emissions vehicles and providing non-fuel-related facilities.”

It would not affect any stations’ current operations.

“Taking the commonsense step of halting new stations and helping existing stations transform their business models ensures we are protecting our small-business owners and making sure the city doesn’t end up footing the bill to clean up a bunch of toxic stranded assets in the relatively near future,” Koretz said.

For some, like Karen Huh, who said she sees four gas stations at some intersections near her South L.A. home, the idea makes sense.

“I think we have enough, to be honest — more than enough,” the 28-year-old said while filling her tank on South Vermont Avenue. She also said, given current gas prices, she’s been researching buying an electric or hybrid car once she pays off her SUV in the next few months.

Troy Walker, 49, said he also would like to switch to an electric car, but their skyrocketing prices have put the idea on the back burner. Still, he said he’d have no qualms about the city banning new gas stations, especially given what he knows about climate change — which he learned about during a sustainability course.

“If people were more educated, they would be more aware and would oppose the new gas stations,” Walker said, filing up his tank at a recently opened 7-Eleven on West Century Boulevard, one of the few new stations permitted by L.A. in recent years.

From 2016 to summer 2021, Los Angeles approved permits for only one or two new gas stations a year, except in 2017, when three were approved, according to data provided to The Times by Koretz’s office. It wasn’t immediately clear whether any were permitted in the last year, as the city’s Department of Building and Safety did not immediately fulfill a records request for additional information.

“I’m concerned about the ozone layer for the future of my kids,” Walker said. “It’s definitely going to affect the younger generation.”

Brian Mullins, though, said he’d rather local officials focus on ramping up electric power infrastructure than halting new gas stations. He pointed out the pumps have a limited lifespan, which means they eventually need to be replaced.

“How long before you don’t have enough gas stations?” Mullins, 62, asked, while filling up at a station in Westchester.

Koretz’s motion, which was seconded by Councilman Kevin de León, was introduced in May 2021 but tabled by the city’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee in September without much discussion. City leaders now say they expect a full hearing in August.

Five neighborhood councils — Westside, Silver Lake, Los Feliz, Echo Park and North Westwood — submitted statements in support of the motion, at least three of which voted unanimously to support the proposal, city records show. Only one person addressed the idea during public comments in September, questioning why the city wouldn’t “lead by example and convert the entire city’s fleet to nonfossil fuel-burning before [officials] make life more difficult for everyone else in the city?”

At least one other nearby city — West Hollywood — is also considering restricting new gas stations. Its city council approved a directive in April 2021 for officials to evaluate the plan before developing a law. West Hollywood spokesperson Sheri Lunn said the proposal is set for subcommittee review, and if approvals continue, it could see a full council vote by the end of the year.

Los Angeles County had just over 2,000 gas stations in 2020, according to data from the California Energy Commission. The commission does not track city-level data.

In 2020, about 2,750 million gallons of gasoline were sold in L.A. County, according to commission data — about three times that of any other county in California. In 2019, before the pandemic affected travel and commutes, L.A. County gas sales totaled 3,600 million gallons, state data show.

As more cities consider the bans, the California Fuels & Convenience Alliance, which lobbies for gas station owners, will continue opposing the proposals, said Sam Bayless, the alliance’s policy director. He mainly worries about how market limits could further increase gas prices and how an outright ban could affect a city’s development.

“Not being able to serve the people who live there, who are commuting to work, picking up their kids from soccer practice … is really a disservice to the people who are new to the area,” Bayless said.

While he called the future of gas stations a complicated issue given the climate crisis, he said they are still an “essential service,” as electric and other energy sources haven’t filled the gap, especially for low- and middle-income Californians.

But opposition hasn’t affected the movement’s success for leaders in Rohnert Park and Sebastopol, both small cities in Sonoma Valley that passed new gas station bans, as well as neighboring cities American Canyon and Calistoga. Officials in other California cities, as well as in New York and British Columbia, have said they are developing similar legislation, motivated to limit reliance on fossil-fuel infrastructure.

“We cannot even think twice about the banning of the gas station,” Rohnert Park Mayor Jackie Elward said. “Why would we want more fossil fuel pollutions with costly cleanup of more gas stations when we have enough, and California won’t even have gas cars for sale by 2035?”

AFTER BUCKING AIPAC LINE, REP. SEAN CASTEN RETURNED $50,000 TO RIGHT-LEANING PRO-ISRAEL DONORS

In a sign that the conservative pro-Israel groups that backed his campaign may have made a risky bet, Federal Election Commission records show Illinois Rep. Sean Casten, who recently ousted left-wing colleague Marie Newman in a heated primary, returned nearly $50,000 in contributions from donors of Pro-Israel America PAC.

The donations were returned after Casten took actions at odds with Washington’s overwhelming right-leaning pro-Israel consensus. Pro-Israel America PAC is closely affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the flagship Israel lobby group and main enforcer on Capitol Hill of the right-leaning orthodoxies.

The refunded contributions are part of a larger trend this election season, which has seen unprecedented amounts of spending from pro-Israel organizations upend the playing field in Democratic primaries. “This is yet another wrinkle in that story,” Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, told The Intercept. “We know that much of this money has been coming from Republicans, and these refunds provide even more insight into how this money is reshaping the landscape for Democratic politicians.”

The refunds, processed on April 6, were made to 15 donors who contributed between $1,000 and $5,800 in early February. Each donor had also previously given to Republican candidates — such as Christian nationalist and failed Nevada congressional candidate David Brog — who were backed by conservative pro-Israel groups. Pro-Israel America PAC and representatives from the Casten campaign did not respond to multiple requests to explain the reason for the refunds.

If the contributions were returned as a result of Casten’s actions, the refunds would raise legal and ethical questions for Pro-Israel America PAC. While potential violations are rarely investigated or enforced, federal law prohibits tying campaign contributions to specific votes. There is no direct evidence that the refunded contributions are tied to any votes Casten has cast.

In the time between the receipt of the donations and their return, Casten strayed from the rigid AIPAC line on Israel policy on a number of occasions. In mid-February, Casten joined several House colleagues on a trip to Israel and Palestine sponsored by liberal pro-Israel group J Street, which has publicly butted heads with AIPAC in several high-profile races this cycle. Halfway through that trip, J Street publicly pulled its endorsement from Newman, who the group had previously supported, and threw its weight fully behind Casten. A representative from J Street declined to comment for this story.

While it is not uncommon for AIPAC and J Street to support the same candidate, it is rare for both groups to do so in a competitive primary. Casten ultimately did not receive an official endorsement from AIPAC this cycle, while J Street’s conduit PAC fundraised extensively for Casten. After gaining J Street’s support, Casten in March signed on to efforts to pressure the Biden administration into a stronger stance against Israel’s continued expansion of illegal settlements and the requisite demolition of Palestinian communities.

The returned donations came amid mounting pressure from progressive groups to force Democrats to reckon with the right-wing inclinations of the pro-Israel world. “Sean Casten did what every self-respecting Democrat should be doing — refusing tens of thousands of dollars from AIPAC and their allies on the Christian right,” said Eva Borgwardt, the political director of anti-occupation Jewish organization IfNotNow. “Other representatives have the same choice and should refuse this funding if they truly stand for the democratic values they preach.”

Despite the refunds, Casten did receive some support from AIPAC-allied donors in his bid against Newman. The group Democratic Majority for Israel, which is also connected to AIPAC’s donor and operative network, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the race through its PAC. Notably, that spending included very little money — approximately $40,000 — supporting Casten compared with the half-million the group spent opposing Newman. (In other competitive primaries this cycle, DMFI has spent a significantly higher proportion of its advertising money on positive ads for its endorsed candidate.)

AIPAC and Pro-Israel America PAC’s distance from the race is striking given the prominence of Israel policy in the contest. Newman faced considerable criticism after an Office of Congressional Ethics report suggested that she had engaged in unethical behavior by promising a campaign position to Palestinian American professor Iymen Chehade to dissuade him from running against her in her successful bid to unseat a conservative Democratic opponent of abortion rights in 2020. Newman ultimately bested then-Rep. Dan Lipinski with 51 percent of the vote — a margin of just over 2,000 ballots.

The tenuous relationship between Casten and the conservative pro-Israel donors who backed his reelection is a hopeful sign for progressives who were dismayed by his trouncing of Newman last month. While Casten’s willingness to fight for progressive priorities is an open question, he is broadly supported by environmental groups, who see him as a solid ally in the fight against the climate crisis despite some blemishes on his record. And before Illinois Democrats passed a congressional map that appeared specially crafted to disadvantage Newman in favor of Casten, the two were seen as allies despite ideological and tactical differences.