Adam Pagnucco, early voting

MoCo Early Voters Are Not Who You Think

By Adam Pagnucco.

Early voting wrapped up yesterday and the State Board of Elections has posted results.  Folks, we can say this: a wild race just got a whole lot wilder.

First, as we saw from the first day of early voting, turnout is waaaay up.  Here is the distribution by party in the 2014 and 2018 primaries.

Early voting is up for everyone but especially for Democrats.

Now here is the early voting by Congressional, State Legislative and County Council districts.

The biggest increases in early voting have occurred in State District 15, State District 16, Council District 1 and Congressional District 6.  The lowest increases – by far – have occurred in State District 20 and Council District 5.

Below we show early voting by gender and age group.

Women have an edge here but not a huge one.  The age group results are astounding.  Turnout is up by a gigantic amount for people aged 18 through 24.  It went up by the least amount for people aged 45 through 64.

Additionally, one of the campaigns analyzed the voting patterns of those who voted early for us.  Roughly half the Democratic early voters had voted in at least two of the last three mid-term primaries (2006, 2010 and 2014).  The other half had voted less regularly or not at all.

We draw the following tentative conclusions from this data.

1.  Voters in Congressional District 6 and nearby areas turned out more strongly than the rest of the county.  This might reflect the intense campaigning of the congressional candidates there and especially the massive spending by David Trone.  This is good news for countywide candidates who run strong in those places.

2.  Voters in District 20 – the liberal heart of MoCo that includes Takoma Park and inside-the-Beltway Silver Spring – did not turn out to the same extent.  This is not a great thing for countywide candidates whose base is in that area and is especially bad for County Executive candidate Marc Elrich.

3.  Tons and tons of voters who are not targeted by most campaigns – especially young people, irregular voters and new voters – have come out and are roughly equal to the super Dems.  This adds an element of unpredictability to the race.  For the most part, these voters are not getting overwhelmed by mail, door knocks and phone calls as are super Dems.  How are they getting information on local races?  Television is one source.  Those campaigns with the resources for a huge target universe (like Trone and David Blair) are communicating with them while others are not.  If they are using Google to research candidates, they are encountering sources like Bethesda Magazine and the blogs since few other sites write about down-ticket races.  Some of them may not be voting down-ticket at all and may only be casting votes for Governor and Congress.

4.  And finally, we offer our standard caveat: we don’t know if higher early voting will cannibalize from election day voting or add to it.  We won’t know that until Tuesday night.

This is a helluva race, folks.  Every time we think we might be starting to figure it out – BAM! – something unexpected happens.  If you’re a MoCo political junkie like we are, this election is one for the ages!

Share
Adam Pagnucco, District 18

On the District 18 House Race

By David Lublin and Adam Pagnucco.

Folks, this is an unusual joint post from the two of us.  David and Adam both live in District 18 and we’ve seen a lot of action here over the last few cycles, so we decided to write this one together.  Each of our remarks are labeled so you know who is saying what.  We begin by printing the June financial summary and the endorsements below.  We include the Senate candidates in that data but today’s post is on the House race.

Update: The original totals we reported for Emily Shetty were incorrrect.  The correct ones are below.

David

District 18 is blessed with eight (count ‘em!) candidates for the three delegate seats. How is the race shaping up as we head into Election Day?

Helga Luest created one of the real moments of the campaign when she attacked Del. Jeff Waldstreicher, a candidate for Senate, as sexist for trying to recruit her into the Senate race. Her “low carb” campaign is catchy but makes me think about the Atkins Diet rather than carbon emissions and the environment.

Regardless, Helga is not likely to come in the money because she just hasn’t raised enough of it to engage in sufficient voter contact. Ron Franks has run an earnest campaign and made a positive impression on voters who have met or seen him but faces the same fundamental problem. Like Helga, Ron has raised less than $15K, which is just not enough to win.

That leaves six other candidates, including incumbent Del. Al Carr. (Disclosure: I am supporting Al.) Maryland Matters sees Al as highly vulnerable, pointing to his past victories as part of a slate and that he has raised less money than several other aggressive, hungry candidates.

I see it differently. Though he has less money, he has raised just a hair under $100K, plenty of money for a delegate race and well over the threshold needed for sufficient voter contact. A former municipal official, Al has cultivated a network of support among local municipal, civic and environmental activists.

This is Al’s fourth time on the ballot with two previous victories under his belt, so he has greater name recognition. I also note that Al has managed to do just fine even when opposed by the Washington Post and the Post isn’t making endorsements this year. Finally, he has far more endorsements than the other candidates. In a crowded race, he has consistent support.

Adam

I agree with David that Helga Luest and Ron Franks don’t have the resources to compete.  I think Al Carr will probably win but I am less confident of that than David.  In 2010 and 2014, Al ran as part of a united slate of incumbents headed by Senator Rich Madaleno.  (I was the slate Treasurer from 2008 through 2012.)  In the one race that he ran by himself – 2006 – he finished seventh of eight.  Times are different now because Al is the only incumbent running for one of three seats.  That’s a huge advantage.  But the Delegate field is very strong this year with several well-financed and hungry new candidates.  I think Al will win but if he doesn’t I won’t be shocked.

David

Emily Shetty came in a strong fourth in 2014 and worked very hard to maintain visibility since the last election. She was a leader in the D18 Democratic Caucus and now on MCDCC as a gender-balance appointee. She has raised more than last time, though less than anyone besides Luest or Franks, and doesn’t face a slate of incumbents. Emily has tried to position herself as left wing and a new mom, succeeding better at the latter.

Word on the street is that Emily has been working very hard at the doors and run a good, focused campaign. Though she missed out on the Apple Ballot, Emily has secured a number of nice endorsements, partly because organizations perceive her as a likely winner. The one major downside: she was endorsed by the Washington Post last time and used the endorsement well to close strong. She won’t have that advantage this time.

By all rights, Leslie Milano ought to be out of the mix. She entered the race late, has fewer endorsements and has raised less money than all but Shetty, Franks and Luest. Nevertheless, Leslie has managed to make herself a strong contender. Though still relatively young, she is a bit older than several candidates and has made a consistent impression as someone with a real edge in terms of experience and maturity. Combined with authenticity, she strikes many voters as trustworthy and with the potential to be a strong delegate. At least in my area, she has sent out unusually strong neighbor letters with grassroots support. Still, she is making up ground.

Adam

I like Emily and Leslie very much.  Emily should be a model for politicians who lose their first race.  The temptation is to say, “Never again!” and go back to a sane life.  That’s totally understandable!  But Emily decided to stay involved, joining the Central Committee and working with both Action Committee for Transit and the Wheaton Hills Civic Association.  She has many more relationships now than when she first ran and is a stronger candidate.  I think she will win.

Leslie is one of my favorite new candidates in the entire county.  She is a very smart, charismatic and experienced person who is also a hard worker and a good listener.  Most of my friends in the D18 activist community love her to death.  She’s also versatile.  If you’re a progressive, you will love her work to pressure sweatshops to clean up their acts earlier in her career.  If you’re more of a moderate, you will love her emphasis on jobs and the economy.  But as David noted, she got in late and that hurt her ability to garner institutional endorsements.  If Leslie doesn’t win this time, I would like to see her come back and try again.

David

Jared Solomon is a young teacher and I hear repeated whispers from many that he’s extremely nice and seems on track to win one of the delegate seats. While his fundraising is lower than some at $93K, it is certainly well above the threshold for a strong campaign and Jared has run a very hard, engaging campaign. Among the non-incumbents, only Emily can go toe-to-toe in endorsements and he is on the Apple Ballot.

If this election were about signs and money, Joel Rubin would win a walk. In the Town of Chevy Chase, where he won election to the Town Council in 2017, I see about twenty of his signs as I walk into Bethesda. At $152K, he has also raised more money than anyone else in the field. As my mailbox indicates, he is closing with a lot of mail. A former political appointee in the State Department, Joel has real communication skills and a lot of foreign policy experience.

Joel sought the Democratic nomination for Congress in 2016. In terms of votes, it didn’t go well but he acquitted himself well and it turns out his donors were still ready to help fund his state legislative campaign just two years later. This previous campaign expanded his name recognition but his emphasis on national politics, including in some campaign videos, and running for offices at different levels of government, may not play well with all voters. On the other hand, his videos about his family are among the best and a great, authentic American story. He’s on the Apple Ballot but has few other endorsements from groups.

Mila Johns has made a real presence on social media. She speaks her mind both on Facebook and in forums, coming across as an opinionated, honest, straight shooter – welcome characteristics in an age where people are tired of canned politicians. At the same time, though social media is important, nothing beats meeting voters and our Facebook circles are often tighter loops than we realize.

Mila is also just a bit behind Joel in terms of having raised money and started sending mail out earlier than other candidates (i.e. before we started getting ten pieces a day). Like Leslie, she could use a few more endorsements but has accomplished the difficult feat of standing out in a crowded field in a very busy election year.

Adam

Jared is one of the strongest candidates in the race.  He has done everything right – he’s on more doors than an encyclopedia salesman, he makes a great impression, he has raised decent money and he has a bunch of endorsements.  He is also the only candidate who has ever mailed me a personal, handwritten thank you letter after a round of drinks.  I love old school manners like that!  Mila and Joel are good candidates who have enough money and support to be in the mix too.

Overall, this field is outstanding and is a result of the electoral spigot finally opening after three straight terms of the same four incumbents.  I wouldn’t trade our House candidates with any other district in the state.  I expect Emily, Jared and Al to win with Leslie having a chance to break through and Mila and Joel also getting big shares of votes.

David

This is a great field of candidates and District 18 is guaranteed to have turnover in at least one-half of its state legislative delegation. The newbies may be in office a long time, so make your choices thoughtfully.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, County Executive, Marc Elrich, Term Limits

What Will Term Limits Voters Do?

By Adam Pagnucco.

MoCo Democrats are not monolithic.  There are several segments of them.  There are the 40,000 or so Super Democrats, the ones who vote in every mid-term primary.  Then there are the sixty percent of MoCo Dems who are women.  There are the voters who live in the Democratic Crescent – the area from Takoma Park over to Bethesda and Cabin John – who disproportionately turn out to vote.  And of course there are people over age 60, who account for a majority of regular voters.  Candidates are aware of all of these groups and target their communications to them.  But there’s one group – potentially a big one – which few people are talking about.

Term limits voters.

In the 2016 general election, 70% of voters approved term limits.  We know that a majority of the Democrats who voted in that election supported term limits because of simple mathematics.  In that election, 62% of the voters were Democrats.  If all 38% of the voters who were Republicans, third party members or independents voted yes, then the other 32% must have come from the Dems.  Divide 32% by 62% and you get 52% of Dems voting for term limits.  If a few of the non-Dems voted no, the Dem percentage goes up.

The other thing we know about term limits voters is where they live.  Every part of the county voted for term limits except Takoma Park.  In most Downcounty areas, term limits support ranged from 60% to 70%.  Upcounty areas were more supportive with term limits getting 80% or more of the vote in Clarksburg, Damascus, Derwood, Laytonsville, North Potomac and Poolesville.  Upcounty areas have greater concentrations of Republicans than elsewhere.  We ran a correlation coefficient between Republican voter percentage and term limits vote percentage at the precinct level and it worked out to 0.6 – meaning that partisan status was associated with most, but not all, of term limits variability.  In other words, other things were at work too.

That’s about all we know about term limits voters from public data.  There’s a whole lot we don’t know, including:

How many people who voted for term limits in that general election are going to be voting in this mid-term primary?

We have said it before and we will say it again: MoCo Dem primary voters are not the same people as MoCo general election voters.  Just because a majority of presidential general election Dems voted for term limits does not mean that a majority of this year’s mid-term primary Dems will have voted for them.  In fact, we bet it will be a lot less purely because the 40,000 or so Super Dems will be somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of this year’s electorate and we are skeptical that they disproportionately voted for term limits.  That said, the number of term limits voters this year won’t be zero – they are definitely out there.  Even if you split the difference and assume that a quarter of this year’s Dem primary voters supported term limits, that’s a big enough chunk to swing an election.

Why did people vote for term limits?

This is another question to which there is no answer outside of polling.  We tend to agree with former Council Member Steve Silverman, who told Bethesda Magazine, “It was a combination of interests that created the perfect storm that led to the passage of term limits.”  In other words, there were many factors that drove those votes: anger with the nine percent property tax hike, concerns over land use, unhappiness with traffic and cost of living or maybe a simple desire for change, however nebulous that might be.  While we believe that the Dem primary electorate is indeed different from the general electorate of two years ago, we don’t believe those concerns have gone away.

Who will they support this time?

That’s an easier question.  Whatever the reason, it’s hard to interpret the vote for term limits as anything other than a call for change of some kind.  The current Democratic field for Executive contains three term-limited Council Members and three people who are not term-limited Council Members.  That’s a little simplistic – Marc Elrich is running as a progressive change candidate despite his 31-year history of elected office.  But since Takoma Park is Elrich’s home base and that is the only area in the county which voted against term limits, we are hesitant to believe that many term limits supporters are Elrich voters.  Rather, we believe they will lean to the three outsiders – Delegate Bill Frick (D-16), former Rockville Mayor Rose Krasnow and businessman David Blair.  And of those three, Blair has by far the most resources with which to communicate with them.

Speaking of Blair, we found his recent exchange with Washington Post reporter Jennifer Barrios fascinating.

When asked about his political base, David Blair considers the question then poses one of his own.

“My political base,” he says after a pause. “So does that mean who’s going to come out and support me?”…

“The people that tend to gravitate to me are the ones that believe Montgomery County is a great place to live but we’re slipping,” Blair said. “And there’s a level of frustration, and it could be related to transportation, schools, social services and this — why can’t a county with this level of wealth pay for the services that we need? — and a recognition that a healthy community needs a vibrant, growing business community.”

Those people sound like term limits voters and they have the makings of a political base.  Marc Elrich knows exactly who his base is: progressives, development opponents and people who live in and around Takoma Park.  Elrich’s messaging smartly concentrates on those voter segments.  His troops’ ability to get out those votes is a major reason why he might be the next Executive.

Term limits voters won’t be a majority of the Democratic mid-term primary electorate.  But they might be large enough in numbers to rival the size of Elrich’s base.  If Blair can organize them – and if there are enough of them – we might be staying up late on election night.

Share
2018 Governor's Race

The Jealous Speaking Fee File

Today, a list of Ben Jealous’s compensated speaking engagements popped into my email inbox. Apparently, Jealous has frequently charged high fees at public universities that contrast uneasily with his demands to make college tuition free.

Read the full file, entitled “Jealous Charged Public Universities & Community Colleges Over $85,000 In Speaking Fees Amid Tuition Hikes & University Budget Crises” below:

Share
County Executive, Roger Berliner

Berliner: Anybody But Blair

By Adam Pagnucco.

This is the fourth straight mailer sent by Council Member Roger Berliner, who is running for Executive, against David Blair.  Berliner’s grounds for criticizing Blair are that he is a former Republican, has no experience in government service and is self-funding most of his campaign, all of which are true.  In this particular mailer, Berliner says, “My other Democratic opponents have a history of involvement in local issues and have earned the right to be considered.  I hope you choose me, but they each have experience as Democrats worth evaluating.  I respectfully urge you to not consider David Blair.”

Berliner has officially joined the Anybody But Blair camp.  We reprint the mailer below.

Share
District 18

Dr. Dana Beyer Keeps Running

Today, I take a look at Dana Beyer, candidate for Senate in District 18. She’s moved from being a very successful eye surgeon to a persistent, albeit less successful, candidate. Will her fourth election seeking legislative office in District 18 prove the charm?

Medical Career

In all of her campaigns, Dr. Dana Beyer has heavily emphasized her history as a retired physician. Her campaign literature further details good works she did as a physician, including volunteer work in Kenya and Nepal before settling into her practice as an eye surgeon in “small-town Mississippi” where she “provided quality care to underserved populations, and was one of the only doctors to accept Medicaid patients.”

Beyer’s work as a physician was some time ago. She received her medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 before spending four more years training to become an eye surgeon. She then practiced from 1982 until she became disabled in 1990 due to the long-term impact of childhood traumas related to her transition. (Note: Dana has spoken about this publicly on many occasions, so I don’t feel I am speaking out of school.)

In that short time, Dana had developed an extremely successful practice. According to court documents, she earned $1.65 million in her final year. That’s the equivalent of at least $3.18 million in 2018 dollars. If just one year’s income had been invested in the S&P 500 in January 1991, that would now be worth over $2 million, and over $22 million if dividends had been reinvested.

Leaving Medicine

Dana explained to me that it was not feasible to return to medicine because skills atrophy and her medical subspecialty had moved along by the time she had completed her gender transition. Due to her success in what was clearly a brilliant, short career as an eye surgeon, she was also in the unusual and enviable position of not needing to work.

The only full-time emplyment that Dana has held since leaving medicine was as Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg’s aide when Duchy served one term on the Council from 2006 until she was defeated for reelection in 2010. During that time, Dana took a prominent role in moving forward the County’s law against discrimination based on gender identity. Otherwise, Dana says she has focused on social justice activism, particularly for transgender rights.

Running for Office

Dana has also relentlessly pursued state legislative office in District 18. She came in fifth in the delegate primary in 2006, receiving 5128 votes or 1217 less than Jeff Waldstreicher, her current opponent. In 2010, she tried again and came in fourth with 5450 votes, 1306 fewer than Al Carr who won an appointment that Dana also sought in 2007.

Running an aggressive campaign against incumbent Sen. Rich Madaleno in 2014, she took 5238 votes, or 2082 fewer than the incumbent. Now, she and Jeff Waldstreicher are facing off for the Senate vacancy caused by Madaleno’s entry into the gubernatorial race. It’s on track to be the most expensive race this year thanks to Waldstreicher’s fundraising prowess and Beyer’s willingness and ability to heavily self-finance.

Beyer has spent over $900,000 pursuing her legislative dream. Based on her past spending pattern, she is set to exceed $1 million by the time this race is over. She has spent more and more with each new election cycle with the total amount rising from $116K in 2006 to $147K in 2010, and $333K in 2014. She has already spent $308K on her current bid.

At this point, Beyer has now spent longer running for office than she did as practicing eye surgeon. This record juxtaposes somewhat uneasily against her heavy emphasis on her knowledge as a physician and, more specifically, a mail piece that advertises work she did as a physician decades ago.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, David Moon, District 20, Will Smith

Unger Fires Campaign Manager for Stealing Lit

By Adam Pagnucco.

District 20 House candidate Darian Unger has fired his campaign manager for stealing and destroying literature belonging to his opponents.  Unger terminated him immediately upon seeing video of the act.

Unger’s campaign began paying John Rodriguez as a campaign manager in November 2017.  Rodriguez was profiled by the Washington City Paper’s Loose Lips in 2016 for his work with a firm called District Political in D.C. political campaigns, including fundraising.  The article ends with these paragraphs.

Apparently, Rodriguez still has some money to splash out. While LL was reporting this column, Rodriguez called, unbeknownst to his partners, to ask the name of the City Paper employee in charge of ad sales. He went on to ask whether LL would be aware if City Paper suddenly received a lot of money, and pondered how much he would have to spend in ads to gain more “power” to kill stories like this one.

It’s one more offbeat scheme from an outfit that tried to make its name with unlikely candidates. Unluckily for District Political, though, the problem with underdogs is that they tend to lose.

Update, 10 a.m.: According to a District Political statement released shortly after this article was published, Rodriguez is no longer a partner at the firm.

Now to the matter at hand.  The video below is security footage from the Silver Spring Civic Center on June 17.  At the beginning of the video, Senator Will Smith, Delegate David Moon and House candidate Lorig Charkoudian can be seen delivering lit to a storage area.  Smith, Moon and Charkoudian are running as a team in District 20 along with Delegate Jheanelle Wilkins.  Unger is a House candidate in the same race.  Smith deposits a box of lit on top of other materials and the group departs.  Soon after, a man matching Rodriguez’s description enters the room, looks around, grabs the lit box and places it in a dumpster outside.

The District 20 team all went on the record and identified the man as Rodriguez.  The team said the lit was worth $600.  Your author sent the video to Unger and asked him for comment.  Unger replied, “I just saw your email and the video.  I spoke with the campaign consultant and fired him immediately.  I consider such behavior to be completely unacceptable.”

As of this writing, we are unaware of an apology by Unger to the District 20 team.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, County Executive, Progressive Maryland

Evaluating the Allegations Against Blair

By Adam Pagnucco.

Businessman David Blair is the only candidate in the County Executive race to be targeted by both negative mail and two negative TV ads.  The combined expenditures for these mailers and TV ads now total over a half million dollars, making Blair the only Executive candidate to take fire on that financial scale.

How do we evaluate these attacks?

First, your author has a background in evaluating evidence of corporate conduct.  For sixteen years, I was a strategic researcher in the labor movement.  One of my jobs was to investigate companies who were targets of union organizing campaigns.  I performed dozens of these investigations and it was painstaking, tedious work.  The basic descriptives of the company – its business lines, affiliates, history, executives, finances, work locations, project experience, client lists, political contributions and so on – were a necessary predicate for researching its safety, labor, environmental, legal and media records.  Some of the dossiers I compiled were over a hundred pages and required months of travel to assemble.  I had three primary tasks: gather the information, determine its utility and craft it into communication pieces that were truthful, relevant and avoided the risk of defamation litigation.  Over the years, I uncovered extraordinarily bad behavior on the part of employers including but not limited to sexual harassment, racial discrimination, threatening deportation to block union organizing campaigns, environmental destruction, bid rigging, intentionally exposing employees to lethal working conditions to save money and a LOT more.  That research background gives me a standard of comparison for some of the allegations against Blair and it is partially through that prism that I write today’s post.

Here are the main allegations against Blair.

He is a former Republican with a spotty voting record.

This is true and Blair has admitted to it.  Blair is one of two former Republicans running for office in MoCo this year.  The other is Council District 1 candidate Meredith Wellington, who was a Republican member of the Planning Board as recently as 2007, four years after Blair became a Democrat.  Those who would pass judgment on Blair for this should hold Wellington to the same standard assuming that either is to be judged at all.

He is a self-funder who has not held political office.

This is also true.  Blair is one of MANY self-funding Democrats who have run for office, including Senators Dianne Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal, Herb Kohl and Jon Corzine and House members John Delaney, Jane Harman and Jared Polis.  Then there is party-hopping, self-funding former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who now spends millions to promote gun control and plans to spend $80 million to elect Democratic House candidates, acts for which he is praised by the left.  And liberal self-funder Ned Lamont, who famously challenged Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman from the left in 2006, was just endorsed by the Democratic Party for Governor.  All of these politicians self-financed millions in their races so if Blair is to be criticized, so must all the rest.  In any event, only one self-funder above the $200,000 level has won office from MoCo in the last twelve years.  Our county’s history demonstrates that money can never substitute for a real agenda that connects with voters.

One of his former companies settled a class action over disability insurance.

There was indeed a settlement and there is a website documenting the lawsuit.  The complaint alleges a variety of violations related to disability insurance sold by one of Blair’s companies that was endorsed by former actor Christopher Reeve.  But Blair himself did not settle the case: he sold the company in 2012 and the suit was settled five years later.  That means one or more of the successor entities and/or co-defendants made the decision to settle, and if Blair thought the suit was without merit, he did not get to decide whether to fight it at trial.  Finally, a settlement does not equate to a trial verdict in determining the truth of a complaint – indeed, the whole point of a settlement is to avoid trial and a finding of fact either way.  The Blair campaign commented on the suit here.

“Blair’s company jacked prescription drug prices.”

This is a key claim in Progressive Maryland’s TV ad and it is based on one 2012 opinion article in the Daily Kos.  Now let’s reflect on the nature of the Daily Kos.  It’s a liberal opinion blog that allows content submissions from thousands of people without the editorial standards of traditional journalistic organizations like the New York Times or the Washington Post.  The site’s terms of use state:

We are an Internet Service Provider, e.g., We are Not Responsible For and Do Not Necessarily Hold the Opinions Expressed by Our Content Contributors.

It should go without saying that with hundreds of thousands of registered users, and tens of thousands of diarist/bloggers, there is great diversity in thoughts and opinions. So just because you read it on the site doesn’t mean “the site” said it or thinks it. That would make for a very schizophrenic site.

The Daily Kos itself does not represent its content as fact-based.  Accordingly, without further investigation, an opinion article of this kind does not automatically deserve the presumption of truth.

A still shot from Progressive Maryland’s ad.

As a corporate researcher and a political writer, your author is acquainted with the standards of defamation when applied to public figures.  Briefly put, a public figure (like a celebrity or politician) can only win a defamation judgment against a defendant if the defendant knowingly made a false statement or made a statement with “reckless disregard for the truth.”

This came up all the time in my work for the labor movement as fortifying our communications against defamation suits was a very high priority.  For everything we said about a targeted employer, I had reams of paperwork (usually court records) to back it up.  I am confident that my union’s attorneys would have blocked me from using something like the Daily Kos article unless I had interviewed the author and acquired documents to back up his or her statements.  And even then, our attorneys probably would have still blocked it as unverified by a traditional media organization, government entity or court.

Finally, the way in which Progressive Maryland’s ad characterizes the settlement and the Daily Kos post is very problematic.  The ad said, “Blair’s company jacked prescription drug prices and another company sold virtually worthless disability claims.”  It would be truthful to say that Blair’s companies were accused of these things.  But allegations from settled claims that were not decided in court and an opinion blog post should not be characterized as objective facts.  It’s these kinds of loose standards that make people so skeptical of political ads.

David Blair is equivalent to Donald Trump.

This one has been made in both negative TV ads and by Blair critics too numerous to count.

Another still shot from Progressive Maryland’s ad.

Equating Blair to Trump fundamentally misjudges the nature of Trump.  If Trump’s sole failings were his wealth and inexperience, he would be no different from all the many other self-funders who run for office.  The real reason why Trump is the Anti-Christ of progressive politics is that he is a vicious racist, misogynist and xenophobe whose narcissism is matched only by his greed and stupidity.  He is literally separating children from their parents and jamming them into detention centers.  And that’s just a start!  Saying that Blair is the same as Trump is over the top.

Trump is holding immigrant children in cages like this one.  David Blair is not Donald Trump.

Our judgment on Blair is that he has his liabilities, especially being a former Republican and desiring high office without prior elected experience.  It’s understandable that voters might choose to oppose him on those grounds alone.  But critiques of his business record pale in comparison to the dozens of investigations your author conducted in the labor movement.  And his critics’ claims that he is equivalent to Trump are out of bounds.  Furthermore, we give him credit for highlighting economic competitiveness as one of his core themes as it aligns with our many concerns on that issue.

Whatever its outcome, we eagerly await the end of this increasingly brutal campaign.

Share

Maryland Politics Watch