Winning-- Team Blue? Yes, But... Losing-- Team Red Is More Accurate

Does that graph look nice to you? The point that Axios is making is that Democrats are "riding a surge of enthusiasm in opposition to [SeñorTrumpanzee], more Democrats turned out in the primaries for House elections than Republicans this year-- the first time that has happened since 2008. Yes-- "in opposition to"-- that means an anti-red wave, NOT a blue wave. "David Brady, electoral politics expert and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, predicts around a 7% Democratic turnout advantage in November driven by women, and particularly Independent women. Meantime, Republicans are trying to energize their voters, since Republican National Committee polling suggests a majority of Trump voters don't believe Democrats could win the House."

Even Trump is starting to realize what's happening-- if not why. He's incapable of taking responsibility for this and will blame everyone but himself. Hillary's prediction-- that he'll fire everyone in sight right after the midterms-- is perfect. He really is a narcissistic sociopath.

Amber Phillips and Kevin Uhrmacher put together a sketch of what Democratic control of Congress would mean for the illegitimate "president." First item they looked at was the "I-word"-- impeachment.

Their first assumption is that there will be a Democratic House and a Republican Senate. In that case, "Some Democrats in Congress have already introduced articles of impeachment against Trump. But Democratic leaders have been wary of appearing to overstep. It’s more likely that Democrats would launch aggressive investigations into Trump administration scandals, since they would now have the power of committees... If the House voted for impeachment, the Senate would act as the jury. But a Republican-controlled Senate would be very unlikely to have the two-thirds support necessary to impeach Trump, nor would they be inclined to support investigations into Trump or his Cabinet."

In terms of legislation: "House Democrats are already planning their debut in the majority, with plans to vote on bills to reform government, like tightening campaign finance and ethics rules. These are mostly messaging bills that seem aimed at sending a signal to voters: Democrats are the party trying to drain the swamp... Senate Republicans and Trump are at odds on major policy issues from trade to immigration to Russia. But Republicans have been hesitant to confront the president, and that dynamic isn't expected to change if Republicans manage to hold their majority after spending two years ducking fights with Trump.

And the appointees, a bit of a problem: "A Democratic House couldn't do much about any of this since the Senate considers and confirms political and judicial nominees... Republicans have confirmed Trump’s circuit court judges at a record pace and could get two Trump Supreme Court nominees confirmed in as many years. If any more Supreme Court justices retire, Trump and Republicans have a chance to reshape the court to a strong conservative lean for a generation."

The next scenario is one where the Democrats don't just win the House, but win the Senate as well. (Support Beto O'Rourke here if you want to see that happen.) They can certainly get a lot more accomplished, but would still have to work with Trump. In terms of impeachment, Phillips and Uhrmacher ask, "Would House Democrats feel more emboldened to start the impeachment proceedings for which their base is clamoring if their party controlled both chamber of Congress? It's possible... Any impeachment proceedings begun in the House would have a much more serious consequence in a Democratic Senate. But it's hard to see how this ends with Trump getting kicked out of office: Democrats would probably have a very slim majority; not enough to convict the president. It takes no Republican votes to launch investigations into Trump's administration, though."

The legislative situation, unfortunately, is going too be all about posturing for the 2020 elections. "The ball would appear to be in Trump's court as to how much he wants to work with a Democratic Congress as he prepares for reelection-- if at all. The 2020 presidential election looms large. Experts predict a long two years of political messaging bills from Democrats being held up by Trump... Would Trump suddenly be motivated to deal with Democrats on trade, the budget and immigration? Trump seemed to enjoy the attention he got for negotiating with Democratic leaders in 2017. (All of those deals fell through.) But he would also be focused on his reelection, and he may calculate that anything his base disapproves of, he disapproves of."

And in terms of appointees, everything changes. "Democrats would suddenly have the power to stop Trump’s picks for administration posts and judgeships. At least one has suggested they could hold open a Supreme Court vacancy until after the 2020 presidential election."

And of course, "Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) would become the majority leader, and his hold on power doesn't seem in peril, even though at least one Senate Democratic candidate in a tough race, Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema, said she doesn't support him."

3 crooked Republicans-- Trump, Collins, Hunter

A perfect example of how an anti-red wave forms-- don't let anyone fool you into thinking there's a blue wave coming-- is how culture of corruption developes in ruling parties. We see it so clearly now in NY-27 and CA-50, where two Republican members have been indicted on multiple and very serious financial corruption charges-- Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins, Trump's first and second congressional endorsers, by the way. Take a look at this editorial from the Buffalo News and keep in mind that according to one source, Collins is running again not because he cares about his constituents or representing his constituents but because his lawyers were afraid that his bail would be revoked. What a mess, indeed.

What a mess.

Rep. Chris Collins, the Clarence Republican indicted on insider trading charges, first said he would suspend his reelection campaign and would, when Republican leaders found a way to replace him on the ballot, step out of the race.

Then Monday he said he would stay in the race. One source told News political reporter Robert McCarthy that Collins’ lawyers worried his bail would be revoked if he agreed to the machinations necessary to remove his name from the ballot.

Then yesterday he said he was in the race for real and would serve if reelected.

Collins is at least the 25th member of Congress since 1987 to be indicted while in office. Not surprisingly, the list includes a fellow New Yorker: Michael Grimm, a Staten Island Republican who in 2014 won re-election to Congress “handily.” Grimm resigned a month after the election, after pleading guilty to one count of felony tax fraud. He tried to come back this year but lost in a GOP primary in June.

Who could forget Alan Hevesi? In 2006, the Democrat was New York state comptroller. Then came the ongoing investigation into his personal use of state government services. This did not deter him from running and winning and declaring on election night he would “serve and work hard for the people of New York every day for the next four years.” The following month, before being sworn in for another term, he resigned as part of a plea deal.

When it comes to corruption, we New Yorkers are second to none.

Collins doesn’t even have the distinction of being the only indicted member of Congress running for reelection this year. California Republican Duncan Hunter has been charged with using campaign donations to pay for a more lavish lifestyle, including tequila shots and family trips to Hawaii and Italy.

Hunter has been aggressively campaigning. Collins, on the other hand, led his party and constituents to believe that he would crawl through whatever loophole Republican leaders could find to get him off the ballot. Erie County GOP Chairman Nicholas A. Langworthy and his cohorts worked for six weeks to find an election law loophole.

Langworthy, to his credit, was clearly peeved by Collins’ flip-flop. “You can’t help but feel like a jilted groom at the altar,” Langworthy said.

Voters deserve better. Elections are important. The choices we make affect our future. Voters-- especially Republican voters-- deserve better than a hold-your-nose choice between a Democrat with whom they may disagree and a Republican who faces the possibility of prison. Collins says he is not guilty of the crimes he is accused of committing. But at best, if reelected he will be powerfully distracted from his public duties. At best.

What a mess.