This one is looking at the wrong issue.
The race was Chris Van Hollen’s to lose, but Donna Edwards has turned it into a nail-biter.
Donna Edwards bounded up the walkways of more than a dozen modest homes in a largely African-American neighborhood here on a recent Saturday afternoon, posing for photos and sharing a simple message: I’m just like you.
The Democratic congresswoman running for Senate reminded one family that she, too, is a single mom. She talked about working minimum wage jobs earlier in her life, and lacking health insurance.
Six months ago, Edwards was an afterthought in the Democratic primary to succeed retiring Sen. Barbara Mikulski. The race was Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s to lose — a star in House Democratic leadership, he would swamp the field with his fundraising and big-name endorsements, the thinking went.
But as the April 26 primary approaches, Edwards has pulled even or possibly slightly ahead of Van Hollen in one of the most hotly contested Democratic primaries of 2016. She has moved the needle with an explicit appeal to African-American voters, who typically make up about two-fifths of the electorate in Maryland Democratic primaries.
A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll released Tuesday showed a neck-and-neck race, 44 percent for Edwards to 40 percent for Van Hollen. Edwards led by 10 points in a Baltimore Sun/University of Baltimore poll last month.
Edwards is trumpeting the historic nature of her candidacy — she would be the first African-American woman in the Senate since the 1990s — and outside groups are playing up her personal background in ads in the pivotal D.C. media market.
“It is the rationale for my running for the Senate seat … It’s about the perspective, the unique perspective that I would bring to the Senate,” Edwards said in an interview. “What people are saying is that I walked in their shoes. I walked in their shoes as a working person … as an African-American woman … as a mom.”…
Van Hollen criticizes what he calls Edwards’ thin résumé on Capitol Hill, painting her as a partisan bomb-thrower who has shown little ability or interest in working across the aisle to get something done.
Edwards, in turn, casts Van Hollen as an accommodating moderate. She says he was willing to cut entitlement programs to clinch a budget deal with Republicans. And she’s slamming him for supporting past trade deals, a potent line of attack among liberals as Congress prepares to take up a massive trade deal next year.
“There are differences when it comes to things like Social Security. Mr. Van Hollen has demonstrated that when push comes to shove that he’s willing to compromise on cuts to Social Security and Medicare,” Edwards said. “I think those are nonstarters.”
That one line I highlighted is why Van Hollen should lose this race, and the reason voters are abandoning him. Democrats have been in accommodationalist politics since Bill Clinton. And what it has got the country is a destroyed middle class, a economy in the dogpile, a housing meltdown, an illegal war, and the largest depression since the Great Depression. Ergo- the middle-class, the poor, and Progressives have been getting screwed by chickenshit Democrats reaching out their hands to Republican Rattlesnakes. If the entire Black Caucus bus ran off a 10,000 ft cliff tomorrow…Not a damn thing would change. President Obama has been a successful President…In spite of conservative racism based obstructionalism. I wonder how much better he could have been if his early advisers hadn’t counseled him to sell the country down the river for some fake bipartisanship. It has little or nothing to do with race.
I would like to see some people elected who understand clearly we are in a war with the American ISIS.