I Wonder If Pundits Predicting That The GOP Will Keep Control Of The Senate Factor In Schumer's Incompetence

As Trump's leader-less FEC prepared for Hurricane Dorian's landfall Saturday morning, Trump took time out of his busy schedule of golfing and not going to Poland to tweet about giving the wealthiest Americans another tax cut and to start fighting with his reality TV doppelgänger Omarosa, who he brought into the government and then fired:

He's very worried that another of his ex-employees is going to do a tell-all about what a psychopath he is too, Madeleine Westerhout, the one who was fired last week for getting drunk and telling reporters that Trump won't allow his daughter Tiffany in any photos with him because he thinks she's too fat. At least he won't have to worry about Jim Mattis directly attacking him. In an interview with CBS News, Mattis said "I will not speak ill of a sitting president. I’m not going to do it… He’s an unusual president, our president is."

Most Republicans in Congress know how to read polls and know how to read the pulse of the voters. And they know Trump is on his way out. Republicans are desperate to hold onto the Senate, at least so they can obstruct anything the next president, a Democrat-- with a Democratic House-- tries to accomplish. Yesterday, Carl Hulse wrote a piece for the NY Times, Both Parties See Control of the Senate as Pivotal, noting that "it is the rapidly intensifying struggle for control of the Senate that will determine how power is truly wielded in Washington come 2021... [Republicans] see maintaining control of the Senate as their last line of defense against the prospect of Democrats controlling both the House and the White House. Democrats... say that winning the White House only to have Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, remain in charge of the Senate would stifle any legislative effort to undo the effects of the Trump presidency." Who else has managed to screw up all three branches of government simultaneously as badly as #MoscowMitch?

The kind of convention wisdom Hulse is addicted to points directly to "strategists" for both parties and independent analysts currently giving Republicans a narrow edge in narrowly holding on to the Senate "given the small universe of highly competitive races. But the distinct possibility of wild cards adding to an already volatile atmosphere was underscored this week by the news that Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, will retire at the end of the year. His departure unexpectedly put another seat in play and gave Democrats a second pickup opportunity in a state they believe is trending increasingly blue.

Schumer's role in this play is to say "We have a decent shot. Republican incumbents and Donald Trump are far weaker in the challenger states than people realize.” Meanwhile, the Republicans screech "Socialists!!!" and pretend immensely popular progressive programs like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal are toxic. Todd Young (R-IN), the chairman of the NRSC fed Hulse the party line: “Every week Democrats offer up a different radical proposal that alienates mainstream voters in competitive states, so it’s best to let Democrats keep talking.

Hulse wrote that "Republicans in charge of the party’s overall Senate strategy say that the progressive agenda being embraced by leading Democratic presidential candidates and other prominent voices in the party-- Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, public benefits for undocumented immigrants-- is turning off the swing voters that Democrats will need to win Senate seats in places like Iowa and Arizona. Republicans are doing their best to brand Democrats as far out of the mainstream. The term socialist' will be a regular feature of Republican ads and speeches." The last time the GOP went crazy on their "socialists!!!" nonsense, the Democrats wound up with trouncing the GOP for around 2 decades.

In 1932 the brilliant Republicans decided their electoral strategy would be to call the Democrats "socialists," the year FDR defeated incumbent president, Herbet Hoover 57.4% to 39.7% with a 472-59 vote rout in the electoral college. (FDR lost 6 states-- Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and Delaware). That same year, the Republicans lost 101 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate, flipping both bodies. Two years later, the Republicans were shrieking, "See? We warned you; they're nothing but a bunch of socialists." That was a good midterm for the Dems as the GOP shed another 14 seats in the House and 10 more in the Senate. Imagine-- just 25 Republicans left in the U.S. Senate. How sweet does that sound?

The GOP decided the best strategy to use to defeat Roosevelt in 1936 would be to show voters how horrible his socialist policies were. That didn't work out so well for them, as Alf Landon wound up losing every state but Maine and Vermont-- 8 electoral votes to Roosevelt's 523. The landslide was 60.8% to 36.5%. The Republicans somehow managed to lose another 15 seats in the House, which then had 334 Democrats to 88 Republicans. In the Senate, 5 more seats flipped red to blue. There were only 17 Republicans left to fight socialism.

In 1940, Roosevelt put an actual socialist, Henry Wallace, on the ticket as his running mate and managed another landslide-- 10 points in the popular vote and 449-82 in the electoral college. Having picked up some congressional seats in the 1938 midterms, the Republicans lost more in each House in 1940. Four years later, the GOP was certain their "socialism!!!" would finally work. It didn't. FDR was reelected to a 4th term with 432 electoral votes to Thomas Dewey's 99. And once again-- his coattails were strong: 20 more Dems in the House. The Senate remained at 58 Democrats to 37 Republicans.

Hulse pointed out that the Dems "need a net gain of three seats to assume Senate control if they win the White House and four if they do not since the vice president serves as the tiebreaker in a 50-50 Senate... Both sides agree that just a handful of seats are truly up for grabs at this point, limiting Democratic opportunities for the gains they want."

“They need to put another seat on the board or pull another rabbit out of their hat in Alabama and I’m not sure they can,” said Jennifer E. Duffy, who handicaps Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Her Alabama reference points to the fact that Senator Doug Jones, a Democrat, faces re-election there after an upset victory in 2017 over Roy S. Moore, a former judge who was accused of sexual misconduct with teenage girls. Washington Republicans are determined to deny Mr. Moore a rematch. But other Republican candidates will be heavily favored in a very conservative state, making Mr. Jones the only seriously endangered Democratic incumbent at the moment. The party is defending a dozen seats compared with 23 for Republicans.

In contrast to 2018, Republicans otherwise will be almost entirely on defense in 2020 with Republican-held seats in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina considered by both parties to be the top targets; seats in Iowa and elsewhere could move on to the list as the campaigns there develop.

Republicans are now maniacally calling all Democrats socialists, even Democrats with voting records to the right of Republicans! Right now, far right Blue Dogs in the House, like Anthony Brindisi (NY), Joe Cunningham (SC), Jeff Van Drew (NJ) are consistently voting less progressively than Republicans Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Thomas Massie (KY) and John Katko (NY). Are they all socialists? Justin Amash, a former conservative Republican and today a conservative Independent, has racked up a lifetime voting record score of 32.72. These are the lifetime scores of a half dozen right-wing Democrats the brain-dead NRCC refers to as socialists:

• Jared Golden (ME)- 32.56
• Ben McAdams (UT)- 32.56
• Kendra Horn (OK)- 30.23
• Anthony Brindisi (NY)- 20.93
• Joe Cunningham (SC)- 20.93
• Jeff Van Drew (NJ)- 20.93

Meanwhile all of Schumer's handpicked candidates-- like Mark Kelly in Arizona, John Frackenlooper in Colorado, Sarah Riggs Amico in Georgia, Cal Cunningham in North Carolina, Theresa Greenfield in Iowa-- are pretty conservative and don't back any of the policies that are animating the Democratic base (with the exception of beating Trump). Hulse presented the DSCC talking point which is basically that "it is Republican candidates who are caught in a squeeze, trapped between independent and suburban Republicans uncomfortable with Mr. Trump and base voters who will brook no dissent when it comes to the president. Mr. Schumer noted that the same crosscurrents helped Democrats defeat the Republican senator Dean Heller in Nevada last year. 'As Dean Heller learned, when they embrace Trump, they lose the middle, and when they run away from Trump, they lose the base,' he said in an interview, describing what he sees as the quandary for Republican incumbents in contested states. Democrats say they see opportunity in the low poll numbers for embattled incumbents such as Senator Thom Tillis in North Carolina and Senator Susan Collins in Maine, who is facing the challenge of her political life after supporting the nomination of the Supreme Court justice Brett M. Kavanaugh as well as a tax bill that has proved unpopular with some in Maine. But Ms. Collins has shown in the past that she can overcome waves of discontent in her party and survive in a tough environment, similar to the way Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, has managed to defy the political odds in his state."

Hulse's hackishness really showed itself as he accepted his role as a stenographer instead of a reporter: "Democrats have struggled to land their preferred candidates in Georgia and Montana." Which Democrats? Many Democrats are over the moon that Teresa Tomlinson is running in Georgia, someone who may be a trifle too progressive and too independent-minded for Schumer, who prefers candidates like Mark Kelly who know exactly how to follow orders and not make waves. Hulse wrote, absurdly, that Frackenlooper's entry into the race is a good sign. He's been in the race for about a week and most Colorado Democrats say they want anyone but him-- including Colorado Democratic Party county chairs and, in private, the state party chair. And now Schumer is more hated in Colorado than Cory Gardner. Has Hulse been asleep all week? Does that NY Times need a more with it political reporter? All through his piece he insinuated that "Democrats" are delighted that Schumer's picks are running. Democrats everywhere are holding Schumer's endorsement against his picks.

So far, Blue America has endorsed Andrew Romanoff in Colorado and Maggie Toulouse Oliver in New Mexico, both of whom are being aggressively opposed by the corrupt DC Establishment Dems. We are in the midst of vetting several other are we're likely to be endorsing someone not named Greenfield in Iowa and someone someone not named Cunningham in North Carolina. If you'd like to contribute to Romanoff or Oliver, please click on the 2020 Blue America Senate thermometer above.