Things Will Only Get Worse For Ryan And His House Republicans As The Midterms Approach

Every poll that asks about who voters would rather see in control of Congress shows the same thing: by large and growing numbers, registered voters and likely voters want to see the Republicans lose control of Congress. Except for hard core Republicans-- and not even all of them no one wants to see another Paul Ryan speakership and even fewer people want to see Mitch McConnell in control of the Senate. But the caveat is always "but a lot could happen between now and the 2018 midterms. And that's true; a lot could happen. And there's no reason to believe what happens will help the Republicans' situation in any way. In fact, every indication is that the GOP will be in worse shape next November than they are in this November.

Harry Enten endeavored to explain this at FiveThirtyEight a couple weeks ago, with a logical post, There’s No Reason To Think Republicans Will Be In Better Shape A Year From Now. Polls that week by CNN and the Washington Post/ABC News "both found Democrats leading Republicans by 11 percentage points on the generic ballot... But the really bad news for Republicans: There’s a good chance they won’t be able to eat too much into that lead by the 2018 midterms."

The generic congressional ballot, even more than a year before a midterm, has historically been quite predictive of what will eventually occur in the following year. It was predictive in April, and it’s even more predictive now. You can see this phenomenon in the chart below. The chart shows the margin by which the presidential party leads on the generic ballot in an average of polls in October a year before the midterm compared with the national House margin in the midterm election. Every midterm cycle since 1938 is included, with the exception of 1942 and 1990, for which we don’t have polling at this point in the cycle.

The generic ballot polls a year from the election and the eventual House results are strongly correlated (+0.90). Importantly, past elections suggest that any big movement on the generic ballot from this point to the midterm tends to go against the president’s party. That movement explains why the Democrats lost ground in 2010 and 2014 in the generic ballot polls when they controlled the White House, while they maintained their lead in 2006 when Republicans held the White House. (With a similar set of data, I used the generic ballot to forecast Democratic problems early on in the 2010 cycle.)

Indeed, recent election outcomes show that Republicans should be worried about what the generic ballot is showing. The results in Tuesday’s gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey were called perfectly by the generic ballot once we control for the partisan lean of each state. The special election results this year have also been in line with a big Democratic lead on the generic ballot... [T]here’s no reason to think that Republicans will be in any better shape nationally a year from now. The Democratic lead on the generic ballot has about doubled since April... The bottom line is that although Republicans may see the national environment improve, there’s no reason to think it will. That’s bad news for them heading into 2018.

And this kind of analysis doesn't take other factors working against the Republicans, like Roy Moore, for example... or their inability to get anything done in Washington... or how much the public hates what they are trying to get done. Can they outspend the Democrats? Can they outwork the Democrats? They can, but even if they do, it won;'t save them.

In both the 2006 Democratic wave and the 2010 Republican wave, incumbents who outspent challengers by as much as five to one, were swept away anyway. Challengers need enough money to create name recognition but-- unlike in non-wave elections-- they don't need to come anywhere close to matching their opponents in spending. And as for outworking the Democrats... Republicans are demoralized and unenthusiastic about the midterms-- and like to get more so in the next 11 months.

Early Thanksgiving morning New Jersey's Observer showed one way how that is manifesting itself. Recall that a couple of weeks ago New Jersey Republicans had their heads handed to them. In the gubernatorial race, mediocre Wall Street Democrat Phil Murphy beat Republican Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno 1,178,628 (55.8%) to 886,966 (42.0%). At the same time, the Democrats increased their state Senate majority from 24-16 to 25-15 and they increased their majority in the Assembly from 52-28 to 54-24 (with 2 seats still in recount). What the Observer reported yesterday was that Democrats have outpaced Republicans in voter registration gains in battleground congressional districts, converting a larger share of unaffiliated voters since 2012.

Republicans still outnumber Democrats in the 7th and 11th congressional districts, where incumbent Reps. Leonard Lance (R-7) and Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11) are expected to face tough re-election bids. But the gap between registered Republicans and Democrats has tightened since 2012 as the number of unaffiliated voters fell.

In the 7th congressional district, the share of unaffiliated voters dropped from 47 percent to 41 percent. Democrats converted more of those voters than Republicans, going from roughly 24 percent to 28 percent of all voters from 2012 to November. Meanwhile, Republicans increased their registration totals by less than one percentage point, rising to nearly 31 percent. Republicans still outnumbered Democrats, 160,458 to 147,799, as of Nov. 7, according to the state Division of Elections.

This pattern-- more Republicans overall, but larger Democratic gains in terms of voter registration-- also appeared in Frelinghuysen’s 11th congressional district. Registered Democrats grew from 25 percent to 29 percent of the electorate there, while the share of Republicans ticked up from 30 percent to 31 percent. Unaffiliated voters make up less than 40 percent of district, down from 45 percent. Republicans outnumbered Democrats, 167,812 to 156,422, as of Nov. 7.

The reduction in unaffiliated voters and accompanying surge in registered Democrats is largely a result of the 2016 presidential primary, said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. Even though the presidential nominations were essentially determined by June, many voters were still enthusiastic about their candidates, particularly Bernie Sanders supporters, Murray wrote in an email.

But Murray said the recent spike is also part of a “statewide phenomenon representing slightly more Democratic enthusiasm.” Republicans are still holding their own in pro-Trump areas, such as Ocean County, he added.

...The 3rd district saw both Democrat and Republican registration grow by roughly 3 percentage points since 2012, as the number of unaffiliated voters fell by 6.5 percentage points. Democrats outnumber Republicans there, 154,664 to 143,328 as of Nov. 7, according to the Division of Elections. The district is represented by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-3), who is also being targeted by Democrats in the 2018 midterms.

In the 2nd District, where Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-2) is retiring at the end of his term, Democrats outnumber Republicans, 147,472 to 131,799. Democratic registration grew by 3 percentage points since 2012, while Republicans saw a 2-point increase. The number of unaffiliated voters fell by nearly 6 percentage points.

How Many 2018 House Seats Will Accrue To The Democrats Based On Trump's Toxicity?

Virginia election officials were still tabulating votes, though it was obvious Trump's candidate, Ed Gillespie was losing badly, when Trump reacted with the tweet above, hoping people wouldn'tt see his unblemished record as a kiss-of-death endorser in GOP primaries and in general elections. By Wednesday morning, political and communications operatives back in the White House were working overtime to deflect blame away from Señor Trumpanzee for the massive losses Tuesdayin every part of the country. And it wasn't just Democratic gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia. The outsized losses Republicans suffered in the Virginia House of Delegates came as a complete shock and a bodyblow to the GOP. Democrats won control of the state Senate in Washington, won 3 deep red legislative seats Georgia, defeated a small city Ohio mayor who switched parties from Democrat to Republican so he could support Trump and defeated a close friend of Trump's in Westchester who had been financed to the tune of a million dollars by Bannon and Mercer... and so on.

The White House is panic-stricken that a narrative is taking hold that Tuesday was the beginning for an anti-Trump wave... which it clearly was. They're trying to blame everyone but Trump, even poor pathetic Chris Christie, for the losses. What you've been hearing coming from every White House propagandist since Wednesday morning is "This is not about Señor Trumpanzee." But they're the only ones saying it.

Vulnerable Republican Scott Taylor from Virginia Beach, where the Democrats did very well Tuesday, said exactly what the White House wants to squelch: "There has to be some self-reflection at the top and how that’s spilling over in the down ballot. I know they would tout the four congressional special elections we won, that’s a little bit different. That’s a localized thing. We under-performed in places that we should have crushed as Republicans. ... When you look at tonight in Virginia and the results that continue to come in ... [our] leaders need to have some self-reflection." He called it a "referendum" on the Trumpist Regime.

Bannon's and Mercer's Breitbart News was anti-Gillespie world headquarters on Wednesday, with article after article berating him.

Conservatives tore into failed Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie in the wake of his defeat Tuesday night-- blasting the Bush ally for playing “footsie” with economic nationalism and for rejecting Breitbart News Executive Chairman Steve Bannon’s help.

“Ed Gillespie had no coherent message, was inauthentic, spoke from both sides of his mouth and at the end of the day, even the deplorables couldn’t save him,” Andy Surabian, a former Trump White House staffer and political adviser to Bannon, told ABC News.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham accused Gillespie of “playing footsie with conservative populism.”

...According to the Daily Beast, Bannon had extended “multiple offers” to Gillespie to campaign and hold rallies together, but Gillespie refused. Gillespie also declined to do interviews with Breitbart News or appear on the Breitbart News Daily radio show.

According to ABC News, Bannon made it known that he was concerned about Gillespie’s “lack of energy” and his close ties to Bush.

Gillespie’s woes are reminiscent of Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL) who, in the Alabama Senate race, attempted to embrace Trump’s agenda while keeping his feet firmly in the ground of the establishment. Strange was soundly defeated by outsider Judge Roy Moore.

President Trump also recognized the conservative criticism of Gillespie, tweeting that while Gillespie worked hard, he “did not embrace me or what I stand for.”

“Tonight proves you can’t put lipstick on an establishment pig,” Surabian told The Hill.

And Bannon himself went on a fascist radio show with wing nuts Alex Marlow and Raheem Kassam to bash Gillespie.

Bannon said the lesson from Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie’s defeat on Tuesday night is that “if you’re going to win, you’ve got to embrace the entire Trump agenda, and you’ve got to do it early, and you’ve got to be dedicated to it.”

“You can’t phone it in,” he said. “You’ve got to do rallies. You’ve got to get the president out with you. You’ve got to go all-in on this. I just think campaigning with people like President Bush and Marco Rubio during these type of economic times sends the wrong signal. I think Gillespie’s campaign had ample opportunity to get Corey Stewart, get other people involved.”

“Things were done on the margin,” he said. “People worked very hard, I know the Lt. Governor, I thought Jill Vogel did a great job, but it didn’t get pulled off. I think the lessons are if people want to continue to drive this agenda, and continue to win, we’ve got to get very focused on executing the Trump agenda and then making sure we can sell it.”

“We did lose Virginia by five points during the campaign,” he recalled. “I actually thought Virginia was going to be too tough a reach. I didn’t want to spend a lot of time there, even though that’s my native state. But I was actually surprised by the five-point loss. I thought we would lose Virginia by two or three.”

“We lost it by more because of the heavy, heavy turnout in the northern Virginia suburbs, which really are a part of Washington, DC,” he explained. “When you look at Virginia today, really northern Virginia is a suburb of Washington. It has virtually all federal employees, or consultants, or media types, or companies tied to the federal government.”

Bannon said Virginia is “not a purple state, it’s a blue state.”

“Seven of the nine richest counties in the United States ring Washington, DC,” he pointed out. “I think three of those counties, or four of those counties, are in northern Virginia, three of them are in Maryland. It’s become just like the District of Columbia. It’s heavily blue. It’s made up of basically federal bureaucrats and companies, consultants, lobbyists, etc. tied to the federal budget. It’s been increasingly tough for Republicans to really get a foothold there. What you really hope to do is not to have a big turnout.”

“This is a wake-up call. People have to understand that the Democrats did a very good job of getting the vote out. You’ve got to give the devil their due, and when we think about ‘18, you’ve got to get very focused,” he advised.

...Bannon postulated that candidate authenticity is especially important in the digital age when every statement is monitored and remembered.

“You need authenticity of candidate. You need big, actionable ideas. And you need a really empowered, turned-out, aggressive grassroots movement, coupled with state-of-the-art digital technology so you can target,” he said.

Bannon said Gillespie is a “nice enough guy,” but “he is a Bush guy.”

“He decided to have President Bush come and campaign with him in Virginia,” he noted. “There’s just not enough of those Establishment types left to make a significant difference. You’ve got to bring out the Trump voters, and you’ve got to bring them out in a way that they’re enthusiastic in getting other Trump voters out. I think it’s incumbent upon people. You know, we won in a coalition. That’s one of the big lessons of Eight, is that we won in a coalition. That coalition has to stick together. But the key thing is we won in a coalition but we were selling the Trump program. I think that’s a lesson that hopefully candidates throughout the country learn.”

Bannon made some good points. Authenticity is important, although the kind of authenticity that Randy Bryce represents is positive and inspiring. Americans aren't ready for authentic Nazis.

Vox looked at voters in the most rural, conservative Virginia counties and found they were not sticking with Bannon-Trumpanzee neo-fascist politics. They claim that "Democrats saw their biggest gains in the most rural counties. Northam outperformed Clinton by an average of 14 points in places that were less than 50 percent urban. In the more suburban and urban locations, however, that falls off, with Northam actually underperforming Clinton slightly in the most urban areas... Democrats did a better job turning out their voters than Republicans did, and particularly so in the more rural localities. There was little difference between the candidates in the most urban cities and counties. Interestingly, it is in the whitest counties where Democrats did the best job holding on to their voters while Republicans did the worst."

The NY Times' Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin had a more conventional interpretation of the polling data. "The American suburbs," they wrote, "appear to be in revolt against President Trump after a muscular coalition of college-educated voters and racial and ethnic minorities on Tuesday dealt the Republican Party a thumping rejection and propelled a diverse class of Democrats into office."

From the tax-obsessed suburbs of New York City to high-tech neighborhoods outside Seattle to the sprawling, polyglot developments of Fairfax and Prince William County, Va., voters shunned Republicans up and down the ballot in off-year elections. Leaders in both parties said the elections were an unmistakable alarm bell for Republicans ahead of the 2018 campaign, when the party’s grip on the House of Representatives may hinge on the socially moderate, multiethnic communities surrounding major cities.

“Voters are taking their anger out at the president, and the only way they can do that is by going after Republicans on the ballot,” said Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania. “If this isn’t a wake-up call, I don’t know what is.”

The Democrats’ gains signaled deep alienation from the Republican Party among the sort of upscale moderates who were once a pillar of their coalition.

Democrats not only swept Virginia’s statewide races but neared a majority in the House of Delegates, a legislative chamber that was gerrymandered to make the Republican majority virtually unassailable. They seized county executive offices in Westchester and Nassau County, N.Y., and carried bellwether mayoral elections in St. Petersburg, Fla., and Manchester, N.H., all races that appeared to favor Republicans only months ago.

...“Republicans are being obliterated in the suburbs,” said Chris Vance, a former chairman of the Washington State Republican Party, who placed the blame squarely on Mr. Trump: “Among college-educated suburbanites, he is a pariah.”

...[F]or Republicans, the bad news was not likely to end with Tuesday’s results. Congressional Republicans on Wednesday were bracing for a new wave of retirements just one day after another pair of House members, veteran Representative Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey and Representative Ted Poe of Texas, declared they would not seek re-election. Mr. Dent, channeling the exasperation of his colleagues, suggested an exodus might be imminent.

“Do they really want to go through another year of this?” said Mr. Dent, a leader of his caucus’s moderate wing, who has already announced he will not run again.

In the White House, electoral defeat gave way to a shifting series of explanations: Mr. Trump’s first reaction was to savage Ed Gillespie, the defeated Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, on Twitter. By Wednesday morning, two presidential advisers acknowledged antipathy toward Mr. Trump would likely drive Democratic turnout next year.

...[S]ome of the most competitive House races of the 2018 midterms will take place in the two states. In New Jersey, Republicans will struggle to retain Mr. LoBiondo’s seat and must protect such imperiled incumbents as Leonard Lance, Tom MacArthur and Rodney Frelinghuysen. In Virginia, the district of Representative Barbara Comstock, a Republican, went 56 percent to 43 percent for Lt. Gov. Ralph S. Northam, the Democrats’ triumphant gubernatorial candidate. Mr. Northam also captured 51 percent of the votes in the district of Representative Scott Taylor, a freshman Republican from Virginia Beach.

...To many Democrats and some Republicans, Tuesday’s results recalled the last time a radioactive Republican was in the White House and voters vented their frustrations on a Republican-held Congress. In 2005, Democrats rolled to victory in Virginia and New Jersey, presaging an electoral wave in 2006, and inspiring throngs of Democrats to run for office in difficult districts.

Representative Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he had spent Tuesday evening calling potential House candidates and urging them to watch the returns, telling them: “I just want to encourage you to turn on the television, if it’s not already on.”

“Democrats down there were very aggressive about expanding their map and recruiting strong candidates, even where they were told they couldn’t win,” Mr. Luján said of Virginia. “We’re going to make our Republican colleagues fight for every inch.”

In the Senate, too, Democrats are seeking to expand the map. Facing a narrow path to a majority, they are strenuously wooing Phil Bredesen, a former Tennessee governor, to run for the seat that Senator Bob Corker is vacating. Mr. Bredesen has been courted personally by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, as well as several former governors who now serve in the Senate, including Mark Warner of Virginia, according to Democrats briefed on the overtures. And the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee commissioned a poll aimed at coaxing Mr. Bredesen to run.

Mr. Bredesen is in Washington this week for meetings and is said to be nearing a decision.

Democrats won on Tuesday with a historically diverse slate of candidates: Having long struggled to bring diversity to the leadership tier of their party, they elected the first transgender legislator in the country, the first Vietnamese-American legislator in Virginia, the first African-American female mayor of Charlotte, N.C., and the first black statewide officer in Virginia in more than a quarter-century, among other groundbreaking candidates.

Kathy Tran, a Vietnamese immigrant who was elected to the House of Delegates in a Fairfax-based seat that Republicans previously held, said voters there had mobilized to rebuke Mr. Trump and his brand of politics. She urged national Democrats to follow Virginia’s example by recruiting candidates from a range of backgrounds for the midterms.

“This was a clear rejection of racism and bigotry and hateful violence,” Ms. Tran said of the elections, adding: “People are hungry for a government that reflects the diversity of our communities.”

County-level results captured the dizzying scale of the lurch away from Republicans: In Virginia, Mr. Northam captured outer Washington suburbs, including Prince William and Loudoun County, by 20 percentage points or more, where other Democrats prevailed by single digits in the recent past. He won Virginia Beach, an area Mr. Trump carried last year, by 5 percentage points.

In New Jersey, Mr. Murphy carried the densely populated New York and Philadelphia suburbs by staggering margins, including counties that broke for Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, eight years ago.

And in Delaware County, Pa., long home to a fearsome Republican machine, Democrats won seats on the county council for the first time since the 1970s thanks to a local campaign that featured yard signs that got straight to the point: “Vote Nov. 7th Against Trump.”

Former Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, the last Republican to win a major office in Virginia, said the enthusiasm of liberal voters simply overwhelmed his party.

“The enthusiastic left showed up tonight in big numbers,” he said, “and really determined the outcome of the election.”

Prediction: Paul Ryan will not run for reelection.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

-by Noah

On Tuesday night, I put on the FOX Tiki-Torch channel to see how they were dealing with the Trump Party losses as they mounted up. Ex-pole dancer Tucker Carlson looked physically ill as did something called Brit Hume who spoke like the latest almost life-like robot, fresh out of a crate from Japan. Carlson and Hume were going overboard in their transparent and woefully weak attempts to explain how their boy, former Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie could have possibly lost. Charlottesville had filled them with false hopes. They envisioned their battalions of "very fine people" turning Virginia into Alabama, Wisconsin, or something even more in line with their totalitarian dreams. Their main theme was: Blame the dreaded "big government." Time and time again, both miscreants went all OCD, pointing out that the suburbs of northern Virginia are a hotbed of "federal big government" employees who turned out in massive "democrat numbers." The implication was obvious: "Big government," a bloated big government at that, had caused this debacle. Damn, if only there weren't such a "big government," there wouldn't be so many damn federal employee suburbanites and civil service types living just across the border from Washington who "vote Democrat." It was all "this is where 'they' go home at night." To Tucker and Brit, Gillespie's loss was yet another danger of "big government" because those people think a certain way. In reality, every Virginian who, among other things, resented the Trump Party's incessant attempts to take way healthcare finally decided they'd had enough. That was not brought up, nor was the fact that people like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and their orange fascist freak idol are cancerous tumors on American politics.

After watching 10 minutes of this, I began to wonder if the host of FOX's next show, Sean Insanity, was back stage somewhere putting on a pair of signed used Trump Depends, fitting a rope around his neck, and climbing onto a chair. The thought filled me with joy and eager anticipation. Alas, no such luck. He showed up, but that's OK. There's still the future and maybe he'll do the world a favor and do it live on his buffoonish show next year.

The orange freak fascist and his twitter machine? Well, I'm so glad you asked!

Ed Gillespie worked hard but did not embrace me or what I stand for. Don't forget, Republicans won 4 out of 4 House seats, and with the economy doing record numbers, we will continue to win, even bigger than before!

Well, actually, Gillespie did embrace Trump and what he stands for and, Trump's brain, Steve Bannon said so-

He's closed an enthusiasm gap by rallying around the Trump agenda.

I guess if, by closing the gap you mean losing by 9 points, Bannon is right. Gillespie's campaign advertising made his Trumpism clear. His big issue, in fact, often seemed to be about his and his party's mutual desire to leave all statues and monuments to white supremacy intact. If that isn't embracing Trumpism, I don't know what is. He also went big on fear of gangs and immigrants, once more playing on traditional republican racial fears and feelings. As for the U.S. House races, take a look at where they were. Republicans have won special House elections in Utah (on Tuesday) and, earlier this year, in Kansas, Montana, and South Carolina. Yeah, a Republican winning in those states. What a shocker. Oh and Señor Trumpanzee conveniently forgot to mention that, also earlier this year, California's 34th district went for Democrat Jimmy Gomez. Damn, and I thought Trump said he had a great memory, the best memory. So, not only was it not 4 for 4, all but one of the House special elections were held months ago, not last night as he was trying to imply.

It should also be noted that Ralph Northam was a particularly bad candidate, a wishy-washy conservadem who flip-flopped on the issues of sanctuary cities and statues. All of that should have helped Gillespie. Maybe it did, but he still lost handily. Healthcare was and is more important to Virginia's voters. However, Northam's victory should not make democrats overly confident. He won, but we need much better candidates.

Meanwhile, maybe I'll just offer Tucker and the rest of the repug zombies some "thoughts and prayers," or maybe not. You see, I'm a voodoo guy, and I've got a lot of pins.

Virginia Tea Leaves

Democrats need more candidates like Randy Bryce-- everywhere

People forget the nature of a tsunami in politics. When the wave builds enough momentum, nothing can stand in its way. Candidates' money doesn't matter; quality of candidates won't matter. Just revulsion. And that's what 2018 is shaping up to be. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll released Monday morning shows the biggest margin in the generic match-up in over a decade. If the polling is correct-- and it has been corroborated by virtually every poll this year (including private GOP polls)-- the Republicans won't just lose the 2 dozen seats the Democrats need to win back control of the House, the Republicans could be on the path to lose-- despite years of gerrymandering as many as 50 seats, including Paul Ryan's in Wisconsin.

Enthusiasm for Democrats is minimal but dislike of Republicans in mammoth. Here's the bottom line though:

The Post reported that the 51% to 40% margin for the Democrats is "the biggest spread in a Post-ABC survey since October 2006, just weeks before a midterm in which Democrats won back control of the House and Senate amid deep dissatisfaction with then-President George W. Bush and the Iraq War. Yesterday's poll shows 65% of voters lack confidence in Trump "to make the right decisions for the country's future," which is pretty dismal-- unless you compare it to the lack of confidence voters have for congressional Republicans to make the right decisions-- like 21% who are confident against a whopping 76% who are not confident. Democrats aren't going to exploit this the way they should because just 27% are confident in the congressional Democrats and 70% are not. Again, it's all lesser-of-two evils... but the Pelosi and her DCCC are fine with that. It's all they know and it's how they work-- tragically-- in responding to the election cycle. Imagine an election cycle dominated by relative toxicity of party leaders. Who's most hated by the voters-- Pelosi, Ryan or Señor Trumpanzee?

When asked "Which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you think better represents your own personal values?" 46% said Dems and 37% said Republicans. 10% said neither. This is what stale Democratic congressional leadership has brought the Democrats:

It's worth mentioning that half a dozen Democratic candidates have told me in the last couple of weeks that their own House races would be much easier if Pelosi were to announce her retirement because, as much as voters would like to see the last of Ryan, they are not enthusiastic about Pelosi becoming Speaker again-- an advertising theme the Republicans have every intention of exploiting to the max. Expect to see Democratic challengers distancing themselves from Pelosi like never before. She is absolutely toxic. No candidates want her coming to campaign with them in their districts, although Ryan is experiencing a similar reaction from Republicans-- both vulnerable incumbents and challengers.

In a few hours we'll know how this played out today in Virginia, where Ed Gillespie is running on a Trumpist message, sans Trumpanzee, while the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Ralph Northam, is the epitome of the lesser evil candidate. Polling has largely favored Northam, even though the race tightened up in the last week. Yesterday, though, both Quinnipiac and the Christopher Newport University’s Wason Center for Public Policy released last minute polls that showed Northam back out ahead with comfortable margins. Quinnipiac showed independents breaking for Northam (46-42%) as he pulled away with a 51-42% lead. The Wason polling results were similar: 51-45% for Northam.

Northam’s lead is demographically and regionally broad. He leads among independents by 13 points (51% to 38%) and moderates by 29 points (62% to 33%). He holds significant leads among women, black voters, younger voters, voters with incomes below $50,000, and in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. Gillespie leads among white voters and men, but the candidates are statistically tied among voters 45 and older and voters in Southwest-Southside, two normally reliable Republican segments.

Down-ticket, the Democratic candidates continue to lead their Republican rivals. In the race for lieutenant governor, Democrat Justin Fairfax leads Republican state Sen. Jill Vogel, 50% to 45%. Seeking a second term as attorney general, incumbent Democrat Mark Herring leads John Adams, 49% to 45%.

The entire 100 seat Virginia House of Delegates-- which the GOP holds 66-34-- is up for election. The districts are very gerrymandered against Democrats but Democrats are favored to pick up at least half a dozen seats. Anything more than that would be troubling for the Republicans nationally. There are 17 GOP-held seats that Hillary won and those are the main targets. If the Democrats win 17 seats and take control of the House, Republican nationally will go into a Defcon 1 state of ultimate panic, causing the collapse of Ryan's tax-cuts-for-billionaires bill and at least another dozen congressional retirement announcements. Fingers crossed.

What Lessons Will Be Learned If Northam Loses In Virginia Tuesday?

I recall a progressive political action committee withdrawing support-- loudly and publicly-- from a candidate they had endorsed over some kind of bullshit and inconsequential disagreement and thinking how I'd probably never trust that PAC again. But that isn't what happened when Blue America withdrew our support-- in 2006-- from our favorite Senate candidate. Then-Congressman Sherrod Brown was running for the U.S. Senate against Republican incumbent Mike DeWine. And then he voted for Bush's torture bill. He was the only progressive in the House to back it. He was still a better candidate that Mike DeWine-- and in some important ways a really great candidate-- but torture seemed too important an issue to urge our members to contribute money to him. So we threw him off the Blue America endorsed candidates ActBlue page. Fortunately, he won anyway-- and he's been an excellent senator (mostly) and admitted and apologized that he's made an error in voting for the torture bill, a stupid political calculation.

Thursday, DFA announced that it would cease its support of an ultra conservative Democratic candidate, Ralph Northam, who it was backing in the Virginia gubernatorial race. Why were they backing him in the first place? Northam is absolutely horrible. Obviously, his Republican opponent is much, much, much worse... but he's terrible anyway. So Northam is the lesser of two evils... evil but not as evil. Why would a trusted group like DFA debase themselves by endorsing him and lending their good name to his foul name? Because the Virginia race is just too important? I guess that's what they-- and lots of other groups-- were thinking. The Blue America perspective was to just ignore the gubernatorial race and urge our members to support progressives running for the state legislature.

By endorsing a crap candidate like Northam, DFA was put in the awkward-- and dangerous-- position of having to withdraw their endorsement after Northam said he would sign a bill banning sanctuary cities in the state if one of Virginia's cities tries to become one. DFA issued this statement: "Ralph Northam's gutless, politically senseless, and morally debased decision yesterday to openly backtrack on his commitment to standing up for immigrant families is a picture-perfect example of why Democracy for America never endorsed him in the primary and focused the entirety of our efforts in Virginia on down-ticket races, like Justin Fairfax's campaign for Lieutenant Governor. It's also why, today, we're announcing that we will no longer do any work to directly aid Northam's gubernatorial efforts."

Politico's Kevin Robillard tweeted that Gillespie's campaign started running a digital ad highlighting DFA's criticism of Northam, seeking to hold down Democratic turnout (which, of course, could hurt Justin Fairfax, Mark Henning and all the really good House of Delegates candidates DFA is backing.

Digby was the first to sound the alarm at Blue America. She pointed out that immigrant rights people on the ground are terrified that if Gillespie wins they'll be using his ads all over the country and ginning up more hatred for Latinos. They don't have the luxury of boycotting Northam. And a few hours later, Chris Hayes was tweeting that "A Gillespie win in VA would send the signal to every GOP pol that the way to win is Trumpian white identity politics, full stop."

Meanwhile over the last week, Northam's big lead from mid-October has cratered into a November dead heat-- 45-45 according to Republican polling firm Rasmussen and 47-47 according to non-partisan Roanoke College. (A New York Times/Siena poll out this morning has Northam up a feeble 43-40%.) Their analysis bodes badly for Tuesday:

More than half of those polled (53%) disapprove of the way President Donald Trump his handling his job, and just over one-third (36%) approve. At the same time, a majority (55%) of respondents have an unfavorable view of him, while 34 percent have a favorable impression of Trump.

Almost half (43%) approve of the job Terry McAuliffe is doing as governor, while 36 percent disapprove. McAuliffe is viewed favorably by 38% of respondents.

The Republican Party is viewed unfavorably by 43 percent of likely voters (39% favorable), while the Democratic Party is also viewed unfavorably by 43 percent and favorably by 42 percent.

"Gillespie has improved his position among self-identified Independents," said Harry Wilson, director of the Roanoke College Poll. "More of those respondents say they lean toward the Republicans than we saw in our most recent poll and they moved the results favorably toward Gillespie and Republicans, but not President Trump. As we noted in the last poll, Republicans closed well in the 2013 and 2014 elections. This one may be following the same script."

...Which candidate would do a better job on the issues?

Ed Gillespie

• Economy: 47%
• Healthcare: 37%
• Jobs: 44%
• Immigration: 44%
• Education: 40%
• Taxes: 47%
• Guns: 45%

Ralph Northam

• Economy: 39%
• Health Care: 49%
• Jobs: 40%
• Immigration: 39%
• Education: 46%
• Taxes: 37%
• Guns: 39%

So-- never mind the Republicans learning to use xenophobia and racism as election tools (they've been doing it for decades, no?)-- what lesson will the Democrats learn if Northam loses? Not to back crappy conservative candidates who will drive down enthusiasm and hope down Democratic participation? Of course not; they never learn anything. With polling numbers like the ones Fox reported last week, why would the Democratic Party run conservative, Republican-lite candidates?

If The Democrats Don't Dump Menendez They'll Deserve What's Headed Their Way-- A Loss Of The New Jersey Senate Seat

Bad optics

This week the biggest newspaper in New Jersey, the Newark Star-Ledger endorsed corporate multimillionaire Democrat Phil Murphy for governor-- but what a crappy endorsement! "New Jersey deserves so much better," True enough, but what a headline for an endorsement! "Someday," wrote the editors, "somewhere over the rainbow, New Jersey voters will have a choice between two impressive candidates for governor. But not this year. Our choice is Democrat Phil Murphy, by default... Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, the Republican candidate, is the worst nominee of either major party to come along in decades. Her knowledge of the issues is paper-thin, she's failed utterly to separate herself from the disastrous legacy of Gov. Chris Christie." Murphy's net worth is estimated to be several hundred million dollars, not the kind of politician I think of when I think of someone who understands the aspirations and travails of working families. But that's what the Democratic Party has turned itself into.

Quinnipiac released a new New Jersey poll Wednesday. Murphy is leading Guadagno 57-37% among likely voters. What kills Guadagno is what is killing Republicans everywhere-- Murphy is beating her 52-39% among independents. Furthermore she's been pulled down by Christie's and Trump's low approval ratings, respectively by 15% and 33%.

But Trump and Christie aren't the only politicians hated by New Jersey voters. Corrupt Democrat Robert Menendez is a disaster. Voters disapprove 49-31% of the job U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez is doing and 59% say he doesn't deserve to be reelected next year. Only 19% say he does deserve reelection.

Now remember, Menendez, who has always been one of the sleaziest guys in Congress has been charged with using his office to trade official favors for Salomon Melgen (a co-defendant), in exchange for $750,000 in campaign contributions and many thousands more in hotel stays at least half a dozen private jet flights. Menendez hasn't been charged with having sex with underage prostitutes in Melgen’s house in the Dominican Republican but those accusations are hovering over the trial. The trial has featured Menendez staffers willing to lie for him. Yesterday, the NY Times reported on a top Menendez aide, Robert Kelly, who just spouted incredible bullshit meant to help Menendez.

The aide, Robert Kelly, who has worked for Mr. Menendez since 2006 and is now his deputy chief of staff for operations, said in Federal District Court in Newark that he did not think the senator needed to disclose the flights, or nights in a luxury hotel room in Paris because the accommodations came courtesy of his friend Dr. Salomon Melgen.

“This was my understanding of the friendship exception at the time,” said Mr. Kelly, who had filled out Mr. Menendez’s financial disclosure forms and submitted them to be reviewed by the senator since 2010.

Mr. Kelly testified that Dr. Melgen called Mr. Menendez multiple times a week for years “to ask how his friend was doing.” He said that together, the doctor and the senator would act “very friendly, jovial and lighthearted.”

Mr. Menendez, a Democrat representing New Jersey, and Dr. Melgen, a wealthy eye doctor from Florida, face charges of bribery and fraud related to the gifts. Both men have denied any wrongdoing.

...In a tense exchange, Ms. Abrishami asked Mr. Kelly if Mr. Menendez’s 2007 form was accurate. He replied that he had not seen that form, so she showed it on the screen, revealing that Mr. Menendez had again said that he had not received any reportable gifts, despite having flown on Dr. Melgen’s plane. Around the courtroom, several of Mr. Menendez’s supporters variously sighed and hung their heads. The senator himself, stoic throughout most of the trial, chuckled.

Mr. Kelly testified that he had “scanned” the financial disclosure form rules and was “vaguely familiar” about what types of gifts could go unreported. Ms. Abrishami [prosector] went through the rules and pointed out to the jury that the word “friendship” never appeared.

“I haven’t read them word for word,” Mr. Kelly said.

Judge William H. Walls cut in.

“You were preparing these forms without more than scanning them, is that what you’re telling the jury?” Judge Walls asked.

Ms. Abrishami then stressed, over objections from Mr. Menendez’s lawyer, that the burden of truth on the senator’s disclosure forms fell not on Mr. Kelly, but on the senator.

Again, New Jersey deserves better. What a cesspool!

Not many politicians want to be seen with Menendez

Lesser Of Two Evils-- And You

These numbers aren't random-- there are reasons

If I lived in Virginia I'd be facing a real dilemma-- to vote for someone with as conservative a record as Ralph Northam as a way of preventing a potentially catastrophic Republican victory in the gubernatorial election in 2 weeks. There's no doubt who the lesser of the two evils facing Virginia voters. Lobbyist Ed Gillespie is a garden variety corrupt Republican and in a period when checking Trump and GOP power is tantamount, stopping Gillespie is crucial. But yesterday there was a little dust-up on Twitter because Our Revolution endorsed 6 progressive candidates-- Elizabeth Guzman, Kimberly Tucker, Joshua Cole, Lee Carter, Jennifer Carroll Foy and Will King-- for the House of Delegates without saying anything about Northam one way or the other. [Blue America has also endorsed Lee Carter, Elizabeth Guzman and Kimberly Tucker and 5 other House of Delegates candidates-- but hasn't endorsed in the gubernatorial race.]

I can't speak for Our Revolution but I can tell you why we've endorsed in the legislative races and why Northam is not on our gubernatorial page. Blue America's endorsement is tantamount to asking our members to contribute to a candidate. And endorsement is not about asking for someone for a vote-- most of our members don't live in Virginia-- it's about asking for a contribution. I'm not even sure if I would vote for Northam and I know for certain I wouldn't contribute a dime to his campaign. I would much rather give that money to our House of Delegates candidates or to gubernatorial candidates like Tom Wakely (TX), Ben Jealous (MD) or Daniel Miss (IL), proven progressives.

Northam is a proven something else-- a proven conservative. He admits he voted for George W. Bush-- both times. Is that your kind of Democrat? In his 2013 campaign Northam said "I don’t consider myself as a liberal... I think the less government, the better" and said he is "very conservative fiscally." He has a record to back it up. He's also been generally anti-immigrant over the course of his career until very recently.

Soon after Northam was first elected to the state Senate in 2007 he announced he was leaving the Democratic caucus and joining the Republicans, throwing control of the state Senate to the GOP. He said the reason he was switching was because of his fiscal conservatism. I don't know what the Democrats promised him-- plenty, no doubt-- but they persuaded him to change his mind. Whatever political calculus you decide on in regard to voting, if you live in Virginia, do you really want to back Northam without holding your nose?

The two most recent polls--Oct 17-- show him winning. Quinnipiac predicts a very substantial Northam win-- 53-39%-- and Fox News has Northam up a more modest but still definitive 49-42%. The reason Northam is up is because he's killing Gillespie among independent voters and among women. He has a favorable rating of 51% to Gillespie's 39%. And when respondents were asked "If a candidate for governor supports President Trump, does that make you more likely to vote for them, less likely to vote for them, or doesn't it have an impact either way," only 18% of likely voters said more likely, while 51% said less likely. Among independents 15% said supporting Trump would make them more likely to vote (for Gillespie). All the national pundits rate the race as "lean Democrat." And as of August 31 Northam had spent $10 million to Gillespie's $7.8 million. Northam had $5.6 million on hand, more than double Gillespie's $2.6 million. All that makes it easier to recommend to Blue America members to concentrate scarce resources on races that could flip the state legislature blue and do whatever they want about Northam.

OK, let's leave Virginia on the side for a moment. Look at these two, the picks of the Democratic establishment bosses in the Arizona and Nevada Senate races, two of the absolute worst Democrats in the House. (In the case of Kyrsten Simema, the worst of all.) Same dynamic as the Northam race-- supporting the lesser of two evils. I don't want to go into what pieces of crap these two are and how unfit they are for elected office-- you can read about that here and here-- and here. Or listen to Alan Grayson discussing it in a more theoretical way in this video:



Why is ObamaCare so unpopular? Among sane people, it's because there is no public option. Why is there no public option? Lesser of two evils Democrats defeated it. That simple. During the battle over the public option polling predicted a 2010 landslide for the GOP is the Democrats failed to pass the public option-- a prediction that came true as dozens and dozens of Democrats were defeated, primarily the Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who opposed the public option. The polling found that

• 68% of voters want a public health insurance option
• By 5 to 1, voters want their Representative to fight to add the public option over simply passing the Senate bill
• By 3 to 1, persuadable voters are less likely to vote for local Democrat if Congress doesn't pass a public option as part of reform
• 55% say Democrats need to do more to fight big corporations
• 56% say Democrats haven't done enough to fulfill Obama's 2008 campaign promises
• 52% of Democrats less likely to vote in 2010 if Congress doesn't pass public option-- Republicans more likely

There were 39 Democrats who joined the Republicans to vote against the public option in November of 2009. Almost all were defeated or forced to retire. But the DCCC is currently recruiting the exact same kind of garbage candidates for Congress, as if they want to reenact the same disaster in 2022 that befell the Democrats in 2010. Here's the list of the anti-healthcare "lesser-of-two evils":

• John Adler (Blue Dog, NJ)- DEFEATED
• Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)- DEFEATED
• Brian Baird (New Dem-WA)- RETIRED
• John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)- DEFEATED
• John Boccieri (Blue Dog-OH)- DEFEATED
• Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)- RETIRED
• Rick Boucher (VA)- DEFEATED
• Allen Boyd (Blue Dog-FL)- DEFEATED
• Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)- DEFEATED
• Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY)- DEFEATED
• Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS)- DEFEATED
• Artur Davis (New Dem-AL)- DEFEATED/Switched to GOP
• Lincoln Davis (Blue Dog-TN)- DEFEATED
• Chet Edwards (TX)- DEFEATED
• Bart Gordon (Blue Dog-TN)- RETIRED
• Parker Griffith (Blue Dog-AL)- DEFEATED/Switch to GOP
• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (Blue Dog-SD)- DEFEATED
• Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA) DEFEATED IN PRIMARY
• Larry Kissell (Blue Dog-NC)- DEFEATED
• Suzanne Kosmas (Blue Dog-FL)- DEFEATED
• Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD)- DEFEATED
• Dennis Kucinich (contrary-OH)- DEFEATED IN PRIMARY
• Betsy Markey (Blue Dog-CO)- DEFEATED
• Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA)- DEFEATED
• Eric Massa (NY)- RESIGNED
• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)- RETIRED
• Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)- RETIRED
• Mike McMahon (Blue Dog-NY)- DEFEATED
• Charlie Melancon (Blue Dog-LA)- DEFEATED
• Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID)- DEFEATED
• Scott Murphy (Blue Dog-NY)- DEFEATED
• Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA)- DEFEATED
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)- DEFEATED
• Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)- RETIRED
• Ike Skelton (MO)- DEFEATED
• John Tanner (Blue Dog-TN)- RETIRED
• Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS)- DEFEATED/Switched to GOP
• Harry Teague (Blue Dog-NM)- DEFEATED

There was no reason for the Democratic base to turn out and support most of these shitheads-- so it didn't and they lost and the Democrats lost the House and... well, you know. There's a cost to allowing these conservatives pretending to be Democrats to get into Congress. So far this cycle the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- usually with the connivance of the DCCC-- are backing a large list of conservatives. Among them:

• Gretchen Driskell (MI-07)
• Brad Ashford (NE-02)
• Jay Hulings (TX-23)
• Anthony Brindisi (NY-22)
• Roger Huffstetler (VA-05)
• Brendan Kelly (IL-12)
• Dan McCready (NC-09)
• Paul Davis (KS-02)
• Dave Min (CA-45)
• Hans Keirstead (CA-48)
• Harley Rouda (CA-48)
• Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)
• Elissa Slotkin (MI-08)
• Angie Craig (MN-02)
• Jana Lynne Sanchez (TX-06)

And even if you decide that a New Demo or Blue Dog is better than a Republican-- which on many things they are, even if not on many of the most important things-- this is still primary season we're talking about, when the best thing to do is to make sure progressives are nominated, not Blue Dogs and not New Dems. Here's a New York version of what I'm trying to get across:

Gillespie And Trump Are Both Embarrassed Of Each Other! Who Could Blame Them?

Trump's approval ratings might get better-- but that's unlikely. They just keep sinking... and they are, as Jonathan Bernstein explained for Bloomberg readers, really, really bad already. Señor Trumpanzee is, in short, being judged to be the worst president in modern history. He's "back in last place in approval ratings at this number of days after being sworn in of any president in the polling era. And his 'net' approval (subtracting disapproval) has been the worst among those 13 presidents every day of his presidency, and it's never been particularly close. Currently he's within a single percentage point of same-day Gerald Ford in approval, but at -18.3, his net approval is 9 percentage points worse than Ford's, and every other president was in positive territory at this point. All of that with the more-or-less peace and something very close to prosperity-- the two things that generally drive whether U.S. citizens like their presidents or not."

As you probably know, on November 7 Virginians will be electing a new governor and their entire House of Delegates. Democrat Ralph Northam is about as conservative as you can be and still be a Democrat and Republican Ed Gillespie doesn't stand for anything at all other than personal ambition. It's a pretty putrid race. There are plenty of House seats being decided that are far more important to progressives (as long as Gillespie is defeated). Every single poll since early June shows Northam ahead, with the exception of one outlier last month predicting a tie. The most recent poll, last week, by Emerson College has Northam leading 49-44%.

So why doesn't Trump get his fat, sagging ass down to Virginia to campaign for Gillespie (who he did endorse in a weird tweet a couple weeks ago)?I t's a reasonable-- if inelegantly phrased-- question-- and Jonathan Martin explored it yesterday for the NY Times. Gillespie and Trump are dancing around each other warily. Remember, Virginia was the only state that joined the Confederacy that Trump, the improbable Confederate candidate, lost last year.

Gillespie wants the Trump supporters to turn out for him of course-- Trump lost to Hillary last year 49.73% to 44.41% (virtually identical to the gubernatorial polling numbers last week)-- but there were still 1,769,443 Virginians willing to debase themselves and their country by voting for Trump. But Gillespie doesn't want the negatives around Trump to influence independent voters in their gubernatorial decision.

And meanwhile Trump is a little gun-shy too. He's embarrassed that his candidate, Senator Luther Strange, who he backed so strongly, lost so badly. And, like Strange, Gillespie is a swamp-dwelling part of the Republican Party establishment. He founded one of DC's sleaziest lobbying firms, Quinn Gillespie & Associates, whose marquee client was Enron. He was also chair of the RNC, which is a pretty swampy position in the minds of many hardcore Trump voters. But, more than anything, Trump doesn't want to deal with the stench of another ego-damaging electoral defeat.

Martin wrote that Trumpanzee "has so overwhelmed a campaign waged by a pair of bland candidates lacking signature proposals that, much the same way he does across the Potomac, he has made himself and his incendiary style of politics the central issue." For Gillespie there is also the little matter of how Trump's mental health would impact him, especially if there's a rally like the insane one Trump did for Luther Strange a few days before the Alabama election.

“There is so much focus on the activity and the machinations in Washington,” said George Allen, the former Republican governor and senator who ran statewide four times. “With President Trump, whatever he tweets becomes the news till whatever he tweets next.”

With the president rampaging through news cycles seemingly every day, the biggest question looming before Mr. Gillespie is whether it is worth the risk of trying to harness Mr. Trump’s total-eclipse-of-the-sun attention-getting skills to rouse conservative voters.

His campaign and the Republican Governor’s Association signaled to the White House at a meeting this spring that they preferred the reliable hand of Vice President Mike Pence, who campaigned with Mr. Gillespie on Saturday, over Mr. Trump in a state where the president is loathed in the vote-rich population centers but well-liked in many rural areas.

But trailing in every public poll, Mr. Gillespie is now engaged in a robust debate with his advisers about whether he should ask the president to stump with him, according to multiple Republican officials familiar with the conversations.

Those in favor of bringing Mr. Trump in for a rally argue that Mr. Gillespie will be linked to Mr. Trump regardless and, in a state where turnout plummets in nonpresidential years, that the president can jolt his supporters who may have been indifferent about the race or uneasy with an establishment-aligned candidate such as Mr. Gillespie, a former George W. Bush adviser and Republican National Committee chairman.

But the camp urging Mr. Gillespie to keep his distance from Mr. Trump counters that it would be malpractice to embrace a polarizing president who failed to win even 30 percent of the vote in Fairfax County, the most populous jurisdiction in the state and once a suburban battleground.

As they consider their options, Gillespie supporters have an object lesson: Mr. Trump’s ill-fated rally for Senator Luther Strange in Alabama, where he could not resist veering off-message. At that rally, Mr. Trump started his feud with the N.F.L. while offering a backhanded endorsement of Mr. Strange’s rival, Roy Moore.

“Having watched what a great job he did for Luther Strange, I’m not sure I’d want that,” said Ken Cuccinelli, a former state attorney general, suggesting that the president could bring up the bloodshed in Charlottesville with little warning. “Trump rallies are about Trump.”

Then there is the president’s calculation: Would he even want to risk attaching himself to a potential loser so soon after the Alabama race, in which he felt burned, according to White House officials. West Wing advisers say Mr. Trump is willing to record automated calls for Mr. Gillespie but is not clamoring to fire up Air Force One for the trip to Roanoke.

Mr. Trump has tweeted twice about the Virginia race, including on Saturday night, when he wrote that “Democrats in the Southwest part of Virginia have been abandoned by their Party,” as Mr. Pence was on the way to the region.

Yet whether Mr. Trump sets foot here or not, his success at motivating voters with culturally and racially tinged appeals has worn off on Mr. Gillespie. Once one of the loudest voices in his party for an inclusive message, Mr. Gillespie is now assailing Mr. Northam over the Democrat’s opposition to a state measure that would have banned “sanctuary cities” and targeting him for supporting the removal of the state’s many Confederate statues.

The Republican chafes at questions over whether he is adopting a Trumpian message and forgoing his own advice in 2006 that Republicans should resist the “siren song” of anti-immigration rhetoric, insisting he is running as “who I am and what I believe in.”

“The great thing about a governor’s race in Virginia is the people who vote in it are focused on roads and schools and jobs and the opioid and heroin epidemic,” Mr. Gillespie said.

But his advertising reflects what he thinks will actually move the electorate: He is spending the bulk of his money on commercials focused on the statues, which make no mention of his view that the South was “on the wrong side of history,” and illegal immigrants. One of his immigration ads features amply tattooed Salvadoran prisoners meant to be members of the menacing gang MS-13, a target of the president’s.

Asked if he still supported a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants, which he once vocally championed, Mr. Gillespie unenthusiastically confirmed that he did, deflating his answer by noting that “the debate is 10 years old from my perspective.” (He did more readily note that he supported “accommodating those who were brought here as children illegally,” the so-called Dreamers.)

This week, Northam is enthusiastically campaigning with Obama, who won Virginia both times he ran (53-46% against McCain and 51-47% against Romney). In the end, Trumpanzee will probably be too embarrassed to stay away and will, in all likelihood, waddle down to Roanoke, which is pretty safe territory for him. He lost Roanoke City (56.1% to 38.5%) But he won Roanoke County 61.5% to 33.5%. If Trump does one of his crazy rallies they can bus rubes in from Franklin, Botetourt, Bedford, Craig, Henry, Floyd, and Giles counties, all blood red and filled with Trumpist crackpots addicted to Fox News, Hate Talk Radio and opioids. That way Trump can claim even though Gillespie lost the state, at least he won the backward area Trump campaigned in. Just watch.