For The Working Class, The Democratic Party Is Still A Bit Better Than The GOP

In 2018, the DCCC successfully perpetrated the myth of the Blue Wave. That kind of p.r. is part of their job. The problem is, they believed it. And the results reinforced that mightily. There were 41 seats that flipped from red to blue. In 2016, the House Dems hadn't done badly. Even with an apparent Trump victory, they had managed to flip 6 seats and they increased their national congressional vote margin by 2.5%. In 2018, though, House Democratic candidates won 60,572,245 (53.4%) to 50,861,970 (44.8), as the GOP share of the vote plummeted 4.3%. The Dems increased their swing by 5.4%. That's a wave. But a Blue Wave? I've never thought so.

The DCCC recruited a huge pile of worthless garbage candidates with nothing to offer other than not being Republicans-- even if some of them actually were Republicans who were trying to rebrand themselves as Democrats (like Harley Rouda and Gil Cisneros in Orange County). Voters were ready to punish Trump for his first two years of excruciatingly bad governance. But he wasn't on the ballot... and they took stout on GOP congressional incumbents and on Republicans candidates. Dozens of Republicans sensed what was headed their way and retired before the election, including incumbents whose seats were ready to flip (and, in fact, did flip: Ed Royce (CA), Darrell Issa (CA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Lynn Jenkins (KS), Dave Trott (MI), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), Steve Pearce (NM), Ryan Costello (PA), Pat Meehan (PA), Charlie Dent (PA), Bill Shuster (PA), and Dave Reichert (WA).

Then 30 Republican incumbents lost their reelection runs including notable Republicans Pete Sessions (TX, former head of the NRCC), Dana Rohrabacher (CA & Moscow), Dave Brat (VA), Barbara Comstock (VA), John Culberson (TX), Erik Paulsen (MN), Rod Blum (IA), Pete Roskam (IL), Mike Coffman (CO) and Steve Knight (CA). None of them had good opponents. In fact, almost no red to blue flips were by good Democrats. Those flips were anti-Republican flips... anti-Trump voters. There was a wave alright... but it was an anti-red wave, not a blue wave.

Yesterday, writing for the Washington Post, Mike DeBonis surveyed the lay of the land in terms of the upcoming House elections and concluded 2020 isn't going to be a good year for the GOP. He has no idea how bad it's going to be though, as anti-red wave II is gathering strength. The seat the NRCC wants to point to to frame the election is CA-25, the L.A./Ventura County seat the Steve Knight lost to weird New Dem Katie Hill in 2018 and was just won by a Republican in a special election. Hill had been forced to resign in a twisted and lurid sex scandal and the DCCC immediately recruited the worst possible candidate to replace her-- another worthless conservative, barely a Democrat, who was meant to remind voters of... Katie Hill, who most voters wanted to forget about. She was as unfit for office as Hill had been-- and the voters knew it and, despite it being a blue district with a Democratic registration advantage, the Republican won. DeBonis wrote that "When Republican Mike Garcia won a Southern California special election in May-- reclaiming a district Democrats had flipped only 18 months prior-- he gave the House GOP its most encouraging piece of political news since President Trump was sworn into office. The good news might end there. While Trump, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and other GOP leaders have heralded Garcia’s May 12 win as proof that they can win the House majority this year, many other indicators suggest that it will be exceedingly difficult to unwind Democrats’ 17-seat majority come November."

Yeah... and someone should explain to DeBonis that the GOP is more likely to lose 17 seats than to pick up a net of even one! That will be in his October column about the elections though. Now, it's just the Inside the Beltway metrics... "Vulnerable Democratic incumbents have massively outraised their Republican challengers, national GOP groups have yet to show the ability to make up the fundraising gap, and in several key districts, some of the party’s most coveted recruits have opted not to run. Public opinion polls, meanwhile, indicate a Democratic advantage on the congressional ballot in line with what the party enjoyed in 2018, ahead of their sweeping national gains." He is happy to admit this is all Inside-the-Beltway palaver: "Multiple nonpartisan forecasters, in fact, have worsened their outlook for House Republicans in recent weeks, arguing that those structural disadvantages, plus national political head winds for Republicans, will limit GOP House gains-- and potentially allow for further Democratic pickups." I question the use of the word "sincerely" by Gonzales below:

“Republicans sincerely believe that 2018 was a high-water mark for Democrats, that it is just not possible that Democrats can improve on their 2018 performance, and I don’t know that that’s true,” said Nathan L. Gonzales, editor and publisher of Inside Elections, who recently declared the California result an “outlier” and predicted that the November election would leave the House “close to the status quo” with no more than five seats changing hands between parties.

GOP leaders see the math differently. Garcia’s win, they argue, shows that Republicans can be competitive in the suburban battlegrounds where Democrats built their majority two years ago-- on top of the 30 Democratic-held districts where Trump won in 2016.

“If we can win in the Los Angeles suburbs, we can win anywhere and everywhere we need to win in the fall,” said Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), citing 43 Democratic seats with a heavier GOP tilt than Garcia’s.

Democrats didn't turn out for the special election. Among other things, Latinos, who make up a big part of the Democratic coalition in CA-25, were confused because the Republican was named Garcia and the Democrat was named Smith. And in the third of the district that lies in the Antelope Valley, she was disliked anyway for her support of putting homeless people in her Assembly district on a bus with a one way ticket to... the Antelope Valley. So they abstained. As horrible as Smith is-- and she's about as bad as a DCCC recruitment can be-- she'll probably win in November in the anti-GOP wave that catches Garcia.

Democrats and nonpartisan analysts are quick to quibble with that arithmetic-- starting with the size of the mountain Republicans have to climb. While the gap is now 17 seats, the margin is certain to be wider. A court-ordered mid-cycle redistricting in North Carolina created two additional safe Democratic seats in that state, and the retirement of GOP Rep. Will Hurd has opened a prime Democratic pickup opportunity in South Texas.

Meanwhile, Democrats are eyeing potential gains elsewhere, including suburban districts outside Dallas and Houston where GOP incumbents are retiring, as well as near-misses from 2018 in central Illinois, southern Minnesota and suburban Atlanta.

That means Republicans may have to flip three or more Democratic seats before they even begin to cut into the current majority, and they face serious head winds in doing so. The most easily quantifiable obstacle is money: More than two dozen Democrats have raised more than $2.5 million each, easily lapping their Republican challengers in all but a few cases.

Data compiled by the Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman found that, as of March, in the 55 top races targeted by the NRCC, the median Democratic incumbent had raised more than six times what the median leading Republican challenger had raised. And that was before the coronavirus pandemic upended political fundraising, making it more difficult for those behind to catch up. Wasserman declared the GOP’s path to the majority as “slim to non-existent” earlier this month.

Outside Republican groups such as the NRCC and the Congressional Leadership Fund are likely to raise tens of millions of dollars to supplement individual campaigns, but those groups have also been trailing their counterparts at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the House Majority PAC.

Republicans have heavily touted star recruits in several districts-- starting with Garcia, a former Navy fighter pilot, son of immigrants and first-time political candidate who skillfully positioned himself as a fresh alternative to his Democratic opponent, state lawmaker Christy Smith. Wesley Hunt, an African American former Army officer, is challenging freshman Rep. Lizzie Fletcher in Texas, and Michelle Steel, a Korean American county official, is running against Rep. Harley Rouda in Orange County, Calif.

“A record number of women running, a record number of minority candidates, 240-some military veterans-- these are people with great résumés, and the vast majority of them don’t have voting records,” Emmer said. “It’s basically the Democrats’ 2018 playbook that we’re using.”

But some of those diversity gains have been offset by setbacks elsewhere. Democrats were delighted when GOP voters nominated Jim Oberweis, a conservative former state senator, over two women to face Rep. Lauren Underwood in an exurban Chicago district Trump won by four points. And just this month, party officials moved to distance themselves from Ted Howze, the Republican facing Rep. Josh Harder in a competitive central California district, after Politico reported on racially offensive Internet postings made under Howze’s name [by Howze].

And on Tuesday, forecasters are closely watching the outcome of the GOP primary in Iowa’s 4th District, where Rep. Steve King is facing a strong intraparty challenge after making racially offensive comments, prompting Republicans to strip him of his committee assignments. A King win, forecasters agree, would leave the seat vulnerable to Democrat J.D. Scholten, who came within three points of beating King in 2018.

Meanwhile, Republicans are likely to go into November with less-than-ideal candidates in several other races. In New York’s 19th Congressional District, which Trump won by seven points in 2016, no credible GOP candidate has emerged to challenge freshman Rep. Antonio Delgado (D). In Michigan, top potential Republican candidates failed to challenge Reps. Elissa Slotkin, who has raised $3.7 million to defend a district Trump previously won by seven points, and Haley Stevens, who has raised $2.5 million in a district Trump won by four.

The difficulties for Republicans have been on display in Utah’s 4th Congressional District, centered on Salt Lake City, where Trump won by seven points in 2016. It leaped to the top of GOP target lists after Democrat Ben McAdams beat GOP Rep. Mia Love in 2018. The NRCC initially backed popular state Sen. Dan Hemmert, who quickly raised more than $400,000. But Hemmert backed out weeks later, citing the demands of a high-profile campaign.

“It’s not the right time. I don’t know what to say,” he told the Salt Lake Tribune in December.

McAdams, meanwhile, has raised $2.8 million for his reelection campaign and had $2.2 million left to spend as of early April. The best-funded Republican candidate, state Rep. Kim Coleman, had about $115,000 in the bank at the same point.

Meanwhile, it’s unclear if potential GOP attacks against McAdams-- highlighting his vote for Trump’s impeachment or tying him to far-left Democratic figures-- will even resonate in a post-pandemic political environment. McAdams, who recently emerged from a bout with the coronavirus, said Thursday he was focused on helping his constituents and not getting caught up in partisan politicking.

“One thing I have going for me is that I work harder than anybody else in the race, and I think a lot of people who were looking at the race knew that it was going to be hard to outwork me,” he said Thursday.

While there is anecdotal evidence that presidential-year turnout will improve for Republicans with Trump on the ticket, there is little sign that public opinion about control of Congress has shifted since 2018. Democrats won the national House vote in 2018 by about eight points; a Monmouth poll released this month gave them a 10-point lead nationally, and other recent “generic ballot” polls have been in a similar range.

Hopes of outsize GOP gains largely rest on Trump’s ability to keep the pandemic at bay and recover his political standing in the coming months, giving him the ability to drag underfunded candidates across the finish line on Nov. 3.

“President Trump won most of the seats that are on the battlefield now-- all he has to do is win them again,” said Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH), a former NRCC chairman. “And so I don’t know if he’ll match his performance from 2016, but if he does, we win the majority.”

But Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), chairwoman of the DCCC, expressed complete confidence in an interview Wednesday, calling Garcia’s win “not a sign of anything” and predicting that Smith would best Garcia in the higher-turnout November election.

Bustos pointed to her party’s fundraising advantage, GOP recruiting woes and a proven Democratic message on health care-- “I’d much rather be the party of health care than the party of drinking bleach,” she said, referring to Trump’s recent musings about injecting disinfectant-- as underpinning that confidence.

“It’s literally failure and failure after failure for them, whether it’s the money, the messaging or the mobilization,” Bustos said. “By every measurement, I feel really good six months out.”

Cheri & Rahm

Cheri Bustos feels good-- all those shit candidates she's recruited seem just like her and the other worthless, hated neo-liberals who have turned the Democratic party into a sewer that only exists because it's slightly less odious and toxic than the Republican Party. When I first met Ari Rabin-Have he was working for Harry Reid, although he soon migrated towards Bernie. Over the weekend he wrote a piece for Jacobin, Coronavirus’s Devastation Has Been Made Far Worse by Years of Democrats’ Neoliberal Policies, which should help anyone understand why the Cheri Bustos/Pelosi/Hoyer wing of the party is leading the Democrats down the road to disaster. [Prediction in January, 2023, there will be a Republican Speaker of the House again.] "Coronavirus," he wrote, "isn’t only exposing Donald Trump’s incompetence. The crisis is laying bare the consequences of the neoliberal economic agenda corporate Democrats have been pushing for decades." He explained how "Instead of examining the very real pain felt by workers in our economy over decades... the upper echelons of Democratic Party economic policymaking... hide behind broad macro numbers and use them to avoid confronting the economic hardship caused by the very systems they helped create."

Manufacturing workers watched as their jobs were outsourced in the aftermath of NAFTA and other bad trade treaties, while leaders in the Democratic Party either ignored their plight, claimed we were trading low-wage jobs for higher-wage ones, or falsely promoted the promise of programs like the Trade Adjustment Assistance which never lived up to the hype.

Factories closed, communities were gutted, and good jobs were nowhere to be found. Yet the economic thought leaders in the Democratic Party continued to paint rosy economic scenarios... A certain set of Democratic policymakers and strategists would like to pretend that the only thing exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic is the utter incompetence of Donald Trump. What they would like to ignore is that the crisis we are in has laid bare the consequences of the neoliberal economic agenda [Jason] Furman and his ideological allies have been pushing for decades.

They fought mercilessly in 2019 for a health care system where insurance coverage was tied to employment. In the 1990s they scaled back welfare programs. They pushed policies that tied educational advancement to personal debt and an international trade system whose supply chain is over-reliant on foreign manufacturing, in particular in China.

Each of these steps were taken under the advisement of wonderfully written economic studies claiming broad economic benefits for the country. In truth the opposite occurred, and the economic pain of the current crisis has been magnified because of them.

Earlier this month, the Biden campaign was promoting the notion of an “FDR-size presidency” under the rationale that the Democratic nominee needs to meet this moment. For centrist policymakers this was the threat they thought had been defeated in the primary.

Furman, on the other hand, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in early March making his case for a “big coronavirus stimulus.” Big to Furman amounted to a laughably small $350 billion program.

Furman is not worried that Trump’s campaign will successfully be able to sell an economic miracle. Instead he and other centrist policymakers’ greater fear is that the economic conditions of the Great Depression would steer the Biden campaign and administration toward bolder economic policies. While thus far there is little evidence of this, even deploying progressive rhetoric is too much for the centrist establishment.

Furman’s former boss, Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who has been privately advising the Biden campaign, explained this to David Axelrod on his podcast this week. “The moment may call for it, and I’m a big believer in never allowing a crisis to go to waste, but the whole primary was a couple people in our party talking about a revolution and a couple people in our party talking more reform than revolution,” he said. “And what Biden is now saying is, ‘Well, the post-COVID world requires a revolution,’ and I’m surprised, because he did not win on the revolution model. He won on the reform model.”

Emanuel continued, “I’m not sure revolution is going to be reassuring to Southfield, Michigan; Bloomfield, Michigan; the suburbs out of Milwaukee; the suburbs in Phoenix.”

Axelrod replied that Biden’s policies should be “packaged as pragmatic answers to the crisis.”

Cheri & Debbie

The notion that people who are out of work, without health care and not knowing how they are going to put food on the table, are not seeking help but instead political pragmatism is ludicrous. It is yet another example of centrists ignoring economic pain because they fundamentally support a politics where “nothing will fundamentally change.” This is what they were promised by Joe Biden’s campaign. But if they acknowledge that the economic fallout from the coronavirus could lead to a second Great Depression, then the logical policy response is a second New Deal, and that promise would be broken.

Instead Furman suggests a Democratic response fundamentally based on accepting a false reality. He knows that Donald Trump will campaign saying he has built the greatest economy in American history. Regardless of data, the president was always going to make that claim, and Fox News and his other propaganda organs would dutifully tout that party line.

That is how fearful the centrist establishment is of progressive policy change. They would rather ignore the real pain of working people and cower to the phony economic posturing of Donald Trump than confront corporate power.

Why Exactly Today's House Democrats Never Fail To Disappoint

Last cycle, Pelosi's dreadfully corrupt-- as in just like a GOP pay-to-play outfit-- SuperPAC, the House Majority PAC, spent $72,107,669, very little of it supporting progressives and almost all of it supporting New Dems and Blue Dogs from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. These were the 26 candidates who got the most help-- over a million dollars from Pelosi (and not counting the money the DCCC spent in these districts). The letter grade after their name is from ProgressivePunch of their voting records so far:

• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)- $3,805,387-- F
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)- $3,208,288-- F
• Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)- $3,165,740-- F
• Andy Kim (NJ)- $3,082,713-- F
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- $2,953,370-- F
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)- $2,623,646-- D
• Antonio Delgado (D-NY)- $2,623,610-- F
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- $2,584,185-- F
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- $2,524,001-- F
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)- $2,456,302-- F
• Sean Casten (New Dem-IL)- $2,274,909-- D
• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)- $2,093,513-- F
• Mike Levin (D-CA)- $1,926526-- C
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- $1,813,501-- F
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- $1,645,841-- F
• Betsy Dirksen Londrigan (IL)- $1,571,733-- Lost
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)- $1,559,959-- F
• Haley Setevens (New Dem-MI)- $1,461,966-- F
• Lauren Underwood (D-IL)- $1,436,761-- F
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- $1,385,313-- F
• Dana Balter (NY)- $1,362,961-- Lost
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- $1,333,500-- F
• Katie Porter (D-CA)- $1,289,315-- F
• Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN)- $1,273,983-- F
• Steven Horsford (New Dem-NV)- $1,165,611-- F
• Jason Crow (New Dem-CO)- $1,078,673-- F

So far this year Pelosi's SuperPAC had raised-- as of the February 29 FEC reporting deadline-- $45,987,776. They handed out $2,500 to 43 incumbents who claim to be in danger. Almost all of them are terrible members of Congress. One example happens to be Jeff Van Drew, who was a Republican-lite Blue Dog at the time and soon after getting the check got rid of the "lite" and "Blue Dog" and officially joined the Republican Party. One of the things most of them have in common are grotesquely conservative voting records. These are the 42 who are still-- as of this writing-- in the Democratic Party, again with their ProgressivePunch voting score.

• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)-- F
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)-- F
• Antony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)-- F
• Matt Cartwright (D-PA)-- A
• Sean Casten (New Dem-IL)-- D
• Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)-- F
• TJ Cox (New Dem-CA)-- F
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)-- F
• Jason Crow (New Dem-CO)-- F
• Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)-- F
• Antonio Delgado (D-NY)-- F
• Abby Finkenauer (D-IA)-- F
• Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)-- F
• Jared Golden (D-ME)-- F
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)-- F
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)-- F
• Jahana Hayes (D-CT)-- B
• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)-- F
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)-- F
• Steven Horsford (New Dem-NV)-- F
• Andy Kim (D-NJ)-- F
• Conor Lamb (D-PA)-- F
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)-- F
• Mike Levin (D-CA)-- C
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)-- F
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)-- F
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)-- F
• Lucy McGrath (New Dem-GA)-- F
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)-- D
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)-- F
• Chris Pappas (New Dem-NH)-- C
• Katie Porter (D-CA)-- F
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)-- F
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)-- F
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)-- F
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)-- F
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)-- F
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)-- F
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)-- F
• Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI)-- F
• Lauren Underwood (D-IL)-- F
• Susan Wild (New Dem-PA)-- F

The grades in red indicate that the member might as well join DCCC fave Jeff Van Drew in the Republican Party-- since they vote with the GOP so often. You may have noticed that none-- as in not one-- of the progressive freshmen is on the list, even though several have difficult and challenging reelections.

Pelosi's PAC also spent $5401,839 trying to help the right of center candidate, Christy Smith, in the CA-25 primary.

This week, the PAC booked $51 millions in TV ads for the November election, again, primarily going to conservative incumbents from the Republican wing of the party and almost entirely ignoring progressives (with the exception of Matt Cartwright).

• Minneapolis: $6,756,785 (not for Ilhan Omar, who is facing an avalanche of dirty money, but for two conservative New Dems, Angie Craig and multimillionaire Dean Phillips)
• Philadelphia: $6,130,195 (for protecting Andy Kim, Madeleine Dean and possibly Chrissy Houlahan and Mary Gay Scanlon)
• Atlanta: $4,485,505 (primarily to protect Lucy McBath and for whichever Democrat wins the GA-07 primary)
• Detroit: $4,456,640 (not be helping to protect either Rashida Tlaib or Andy Levin, but just conservatives Haley Stevens and Elissa Slotkin)
• Las Vegas: $3,493,525 (Susie Lee and Steven Horsford)
• Miami: $3,290,080 (Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and possibly Donna Shalala)
• Cedar Rapids: $2,241,105 (Abby Finkenauer)
• Houston: $2,205,190 (Lizzie Fletcher)
• Boston: $1,965,310 (Chris Pappas)
• San Antonio, Texas: $1,622,480 (challengers Gina Ortiz Jones and Wendy Davis)
• Des Moines: $1,410,695 (Cindy Axne)
• Portland: $1,313,085 (Jared Golden)
• Wilkes-Barre: $1,401,735 (Matt Cartwright)
• Dallas: $1,128,300 (Colin Allred)
• Norfolk, Va: $1,116,650 (Elaine Luria)
• Phoenix: $1,106,115 (Tom O'Halleran)
• Richmond: $1,095,275 (Abigail Spanberger)
• Pittsburgh: $1,014,970 (Conor Lamb)
• Harrisburg: $975,620 (challenger Eugene DePasquale)
• Lansing: $913,735 (Elissa Slotkin and possibly wretched Blue Dog challenger Gretchen Driskell)
• Omaha: $895,940 (Cindy Axne)
• Quad Cities: $845,760 (open blue seat)
• Bangor: $751,650 (Jared Golden)
• Rochester, MN: $486,915 (challenger Dan Feehan)
• El Paso: $202,546- (Xochitl Torres Small)
• Fargo: $200,580- (Colin Peterson)
• Mankato: $122,515 (challenger Dan Freehan)
• Presque Isle: $89,760- (Jared Golden)
• Ottumwa, Iowa: $40,920- (open blue seat)

You know what's amazing about this list? Pelosi was a founding member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, along with Bernie, and-- I shit you not-- long, long ago was actually a progressive and used progressives to build her power base. She is now literally an anti-progressive and nothing progressive will ever happen in the House until she retires or... whatever.

Every Republican In Congress Deserves Trump-- Weaponizing His Own Toxicity Against Them

Erik Paulsen is a mainstream conservative who won his suburban Twin Cities seat (MN-03) in 2008 when Jim Ramstadt resigned. Previously Paulsen had served as the majority leader of the Minnesota House of Representatives. Although the 2008 race was tough-- Paulsen beating Democrat Ashwin Madia 48.5% to 40.9%-- he sailed through his reelection bids... until he got on the wrong side of Señor Trumpanzee. I'll get to that in a minute.

The district-- west, north and south of Minneapolis-- had gone from red to purple during Paulsen's tenure, Obama winning it both time, albeit narrowly. When Paulsen was first elected the PVI was R+1. Now it is D+1. Paulsen's voting record was garden variety GOP but his district had been getting more and more moderate and extreme conservatism was a foreign ideology by 2016. Caucus day was a disaster for conservatives that year. Bernie didn't just overwhelmingly beat Hillary (61.7% to 38.3%) but his 126,229 votes beat all 3 of the top Republican vote getters combined:

• Rubio- 41,397
• Cruz- 33,181
• Trumpanzee- 24,473

Paulsen still managed to win in 2016-- 223,077 (56.7%) to 169,243 (43.0%) with relative ease but Trump was a major drag in the Minneapolis suburbs. Hillary beat him in the district by over 9 points, 50.8% to 41.4% Going into 2018, Paulsen was worried. He raised $5,778,480 and spent $5,862,137. And the NRCC was worried too. They were defending incumbents everywhere but they felt good about Paulsen and put $2,292,761 into the race and directed the Congressional Leadership Fund SuperPAC to put in another $946,202 and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to spend a quarter million on Paulsen's behalf. The Koch brothers put in another $150,000 + and all kinds of right-wing groups came to Paulsen's defense, from the NRA and Defending Main Street to a bunch of fringe anti-Choice groups. The DCCC had saddled itself with a right-of-center rich guy with nothing to to attract anyone except one thing: "I'm not Trump and Paulsen is." Fighting for his political life, Paulsen tried distancing himself from Trump. In the end, the Dem, Dean Phillips, pulverized him, 202,402 (55.6%) to 160,838 (44.2%).

But there's more to it than just that. Remember, Trump is very unpopular is the Minneapolis suburbs-- and he knew it. In fact, Nathan Gonzales explained how Trump weaponized that unpopularity-- to get even with Paulsen. Gonzales wrote that "Trump still won’t publicly admit he was a significant factor in Republicans’ loss of the House in 2018. But a behind-the-scenes moment captured in a new book suggests he is more politically self-aware than he leads on. We know that Trump doesn’t admit mistakes or commit sins. It’s not in his personality or good for his brand to acknowledge any weakness. But, according to Politico’s Tim Alberta, the president endorsed a vulnerable member of Congress in an intentional effort to weaken his candidacy." Yep... Paulsen. Every Republican deserves this fate.

In one case, Trump endorsed as a means of punishment. Having heard that Minnesota congressman Erik Paulsen was distancing himself from the White House in the hope of holding his seat in the Twin Cities’ suburbs, the president stewed and asked that the political shop send a tweet of support for Paulsen-- thereby sabotaging the moderate Republican’s efforts,” according to an excerpt in Alberta’s new book American Carnage, shared with Axios.

“When his aides demurred, Trump sent the tweet himself, issuing a ‘Strong Endorsement!’ of the congressman in a late-night post that left Paulsen fuming and his Democratic opponent giddy.”

...Trump’s involvement in Paulsen’s 3rd District race consisted of a single tweet and the congressman lost by a dozen points. If the president had done an event for him, Paulsen would probably have lost by a larger margin.

...[Generally] Trump also didn’t even try (or was successfully deterred) to wade into less friendly territory where he was toxic. Twenty-two of 25 Republican members in districts Hillary Clinton carried lost reelection last cycle. By limiting his visits to friendly territory, the president was essentially padding his personal win-loss record. It’s like Alabama’s football team scheduling Mercer, Fresno State and Western Carolina.

...While Trump might have a more nuanced idea of his political standing than previously advertised, the bottom line is that he believes Republicans had a successful midterm election with his help. And that will lead the president to talk more about immigration and replicate his strategy from 2018 to 2020.

Trump is talking about campaigning heavily is Minnesota in 2020. This will be a dream come true for Tom Bakk, minority leader of the state Senate. The state has a Democratic governor and Democratic Party-controlled state House. What they really want to do now is flip the Senate. As of today, there are 35 Republicans and 32 Democrats in the state Senate. All 67 seats in the chamber  are up for election in 2020 and if Democrats have a net gain of just 2 seats they'll control the chamber. "Jeremy [Miller, the Senate President] and Paul [Gazelka, the majority leader] are both very worried," a friend of mine in the legislature told me this morning... We'll probably take 3 or 4 seats but if Trump starts spending a lot of time in the state... the sky's the limit. A couple of those rallies he does before election day and half a dozen seats are going to flip. He's our not-so-secret weapon."

Biden, Just Like The DCCC, Really Hates Progressives And Progressive Ideas

Although it was certainly predictable, Katie Porter has been distinguishing herself as one of the best of the 2018 freshmen. She joined the progressive caucus, dominates on his committee and avoided the sleazy Wall Street-allied New Dems and Blue Dogs. So... she's exactly what the DCCC wasn't looking for. And they predicted it too-- which is why all their primary heft lined up behind weak centrist and corporate shill Dave Min, an especially bad candidate the DCCC loved but voters didn't. In the primary, Katie beat Min and the DCCC-- 34,078 to 29,979, despite Min having spent $1.1 million against her, much of it in non-stop DCCC-type smears against progressives.

Once Porter beat their preferred candidate, the DCCC was slow to get behind her-- and when they did...not so much (around $3,000,000, much at the end after it became apparent she was going to win)... and certainly not in the way that they spent to support the reactionary Blue Dogs and New Dems they spent almost all their money on. When they really back a candidate, no one doubts it. These were the top 5 DCCC/House Majority PAC candidates for 2018-- all New Dems and Blue Dogs:

• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)- $7,284,383
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- $5,952,363
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- $5,281,775
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)- $4,833,334
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- $4,803,412

Still, Katie won in a much tougher district than most DCCC targets-- 158,906 (52.1%) to 146,383 (47.9%). CA-45 (southern and central Orange County) had a PVI of R+3. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell's district is a D+6, Kim Schrier's and Josh Harder's are even, Susie Lee's is R+3 and just Brindisi's is a tough one (R+6). So why bring this up now? Status Quo Joe was on CNN with Chris Cuomo yesterday regurgitating deceitful DCCC talking points about how progressives, like Katie Porter, can't win in swing districts. The disgusting asshole and congenital liar Biden: "Guess what, look who won the races. Look who won last time out... Mainstream Democrats who are very progressive on social issues and very strong on education and healthcare."

Mainstream Democrats? Progressives are mainstream Democrats. Biden defines the Republican wing of the Democratic party. He isn't a mainstream Democrat. And the New Dems and Blue Dogs he's so excited about having won? In most cases, the DCCC crushed progressives and installed these crap candidates in seats any anti-Trump Democrat would have won last year. Katie's win over first the conservative DCCC candidate and then the GOP incumbent prove that.

Biden has always hated progressives, now more than ever. He opposes Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, and pretty much everything progressives back. His kind of middle-of-the-road politics is what led directly to Trump.

Listen to Biden's defensive gobbly-gook and bullshit:

Biden, speaking with CNN's Chris Cuomo in Des Moines, Iowa, suggested that "Medicare for All" is irrational, argued that the majority of Democrats are "center left" not "way left," and said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, while "brilliant" and "bright," did not represent Democrats who can win a general election in a competitive district or state.

The interview made clear that Biden, who is facing criticism from the left of the party amid an increasingly contentious Democratic primary, does not feel the need to sway to the left to capture the party's base and, instead, hopes to set himself apart by embracing his moderation.

Biden backed up that confidence by pointing to the 2018 midterm elections, where a host of swing districts were won by more moderate Democrats.

"That's what this election is about. I'm happy to debate that issue and all those issues with my friends because guess what, look who won the races. Look who won last time out," Biden said. "By the way, I think Ocasio-Cortez is a brilliant, bright woman, but she won a primary. In the general election fights, who won? Mainstream Democrats who are very progressive on social issues and very strong on education and healthcare."

Ocasio-Cortez has risen to liberal stardom after she unseated Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley in New York's 14th Congressional District primary in 2018. After winning the general election easily in a reliably Democratic district, Ocasio-Cortez has swept into Congress and pushed a litany of progressive policies, all while garnering considerable media attention.

Biden's comments on Ocasio-Cortez get at the heart of a debate inside the Democratic Party: While liberal icons, including a number of newly elected members, grab headlines, the party swept into the majority in the House on the backs of more moderate members who won in swing districts.

"I wish I'd been labeled as moderate when I was running in Delaware back in the day," Biden joked.

Describing the party, the former vice president said, "Look, it's center left, that's where I am. Where it's not is way left."

Biden's clearest policy difference with the left-- health care-- was evident during the interview, too.

"I have a plan how to do that that's rational, that will cost a hell of a lot less and that will work," Biden said about health care, slamming Medicare for All, the liberal-backed proposal that would mandate Medicare as the single-payer system for all Americans. Biden, despite talking about health care on the trail, has yet to roll out a formal plan, but a number of his Democratic opponents in 2020, like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have fully embraced Medicare for All.

Biden said he would not abolish private insurance but would offer Medicare as "an option for anybody who in fact wants to buy into Medicare for All."

"But if they like their employer-based insurance, which a lot of unions broke their neck to get, a lot of people like theirs, they shouldn't have to give it up," Biden said.

The former vice president added that if Medicare for All were to pass, the country would "have 300 million people landing on a health care plan. How long is that going to take? What's it going to do?"

But that was not the extent of Biden's disagreements on policy with the left of the party.

The former vice president also said he doesn't believe "in the way" that other Democratic presidential hopefuls are proposing most liberal policies, including tuition-free college with the cancellation of all student loan debt.

He also took issue with decriminalizing crossing the border without documentation, an idea first floated by former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro as a way to stop separating families at the US-Mexico border.

"No, I don't. No, I don't," Biden said when asked if he agreed with the plan. "I think people should have to get in line, but if people are coming because they're actually seeking asylum, they should have a chance to make their case."

Biden's task is now to convince Americans that his brand of politics has a better chance of defeating President Donald Trump in 2020.

One way that many Democrats believe he could better his chances is by picking a woman as his possible vice president, should he win the nomination.

Biden said he didn't want to be presumptive by saying he will or won't pick a certain person as vice president, but added, "I think it'd be great to have a female vice president and if I don't win, it'd be great to have a female president."

As with most things beyond the '90s, Biden doesn't get it

Will Old Fogeys Curse The Democrats With Biden?

Last night I had a  long working-dinner with a world-famous author and neuroscientist whose new book on the aging brain is coming out early next year. He was explaining to me why the average person reports that their happiest years were around 80, if they live that long. There were quite a few reasons but one big one had to do with a tendency to shut out negativity and to focus exclusively on good news and happy memories (or happy manufactured memories). This is working out extraordinarily well for Biden, whose support among extremely old Democrats is overwhelming. Believe it or not, the Democratic Party could be saddled with Biden-- and because Trump will eat him alive-- another 4 years of Trump-- because of the votes of happy seniors, many of whom will never live to experience the results of a status quo policy agenda (Biden) or a reactionary policy agenda (Trump) that their votes curse the rest of us with.

This kind of messaging won't do a bit of good in shattering Biden's base of support (people over 75)

Every poll that breaks down the demography of the 2020 preference polls shows Bernie crushing it-- both nationally and in the early states-- among young voters. Elderly voters-- unable to recall why they once hated Biden's Republican instincts-- overwhelmingly prefer him to Bernie or any of the other candidates. Younger voters, who tend to be more idealistic and less apt to back corrupt corporate candidates like Biden, are a chink in Biden's armor. The problem, say the Democratic establishment types behind Biden, is that younger voters don't vote. Really? That don't vote when all they have to chose between are garbage candidates like Status Quo Joe and any Republican, but they're going to have to re-think that truism now.

A Future To Believe In-- or Trump/Biden

The Pew Research Center put out a fascinating poll yesterday that didn't ask about political preferences. What it showed is that Gen Z, Millennials and Gen X out-voted older generations in the 2018 midterms. That is an immense thunderclap that just landed on American political science. I knew that that was how AOC won her race but it turns out that it had a determining influence on how the Democrats managed to do so well in 2018.

Midterm voter turnout reached a modern high in 2018, and Generation Z, Millennials and Generation X accounted for a narrow majority of those voters, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly available Census Bureau data.

The three younger generations-- those ages 18 to 53 in 2018-- reported casting 62.2 million votes, compared with 60.1 million cast by Baby Boomers and older generations. It’s not the first time the younger generations outvoted their elders: The same pattern occurred in the 2016 presidential election.

Higher turnout accounted for a significant portion of the increase. Millennials and Gen X together cast 21.9 million more votes in 2018 than in 2014. (The number of eligible voter Millennials and Gen Xers grew by 2.5 million over those four years, due to the number of naturalizations exceeding mortality.) And 4.5 million votes were cast by Gen Z voters, all of whom turned 18 since 2014.

By comparison, the number of votes cast by Boomer and older generations increased 3.6 million. Even this modest increase is noteworthy, since the number of eligible voters among these generations fell by 8.8 million between the elections, largely due to higher mortality among these generations.

Millennials, Gen Xers and Boomers all set records for turnout in a midterm election in 2018. Turnout rates increased the most for the Millennial generation, roughly doubling between 2014 and 2018 – from 22% to 42%. Among Generation Z, 30% of those eligible to vote (those ages 18 to 21 in this analysis) turned out in the first midterm election of their adult lives. And for the first time in a midterm election, more than half of Gen Xers reported turning out to vote. While turnout tends to increase with age, every age group also voted at higher rates than in 2014, and the increase was more pronounced among younger adults.

Together, Gen Z and Millennials reported casting 30.6 million votes, a quarter of the total. Gen Z was responsible for 4.5 million, or 4%, of all votes. This post-Millennial generation is just starting to reach voting age, and their impact will likely be felt more in the 2020 presidential election, when they are projected to be 10% of eligible voters.

Millennials, ages 22 to 37 in 2018, cast 26.1 million votes, far higher than the number of votes they cast in 2014 (13.7 million).

Generation X, those ages 38 to 53 in 2018, cast 31.6 million votes-- the first time they had more than 30 million votes in a midterm election. Their turnout rate also increased, from 39% in 2014 to 55% four years later.

Baby Boomers, those ages 54 to 72 in 2018, had their highest-ever midterm election turnout (64%, the same rate as the Silent Generation) and cast more votes than they ever have in a midterm (44.1 million). Still, they had a relatively smaller turnout increase than the younger generations (53% of Boomers turned out in 2014). Overall, Boomers cast 36% of ballots in last year’s election-- their lowest share of midterm voters since 1986-- because of mortality, while the younger generations are still growing due to naturalizations and adults turning 18.

Europeans attributed the unexpected increase in votes last weekend for Green parties across the EU to the same factors. Younger voters are looking for a better future. The older a voter gets, the more they just don't want anything to change. In Malta, 16 year olds got to vote for the first time, resulting in Malta having the highest turnout of any European country, in an election that same turnout turning much higher across the board almost everywhere. It;'s also worth noting that in Malta, the fascist party disintegrated electorally, the left scored a huge triumph and the mainstream conservative party also went down to a significant defeat.

What The 2018 Referendum On Trump Could Mean Next Year

The 2018 midterm election were the story go how two years of Trump-- along with a supine, enabling GOP Congress-- impacted voters. According a study by Brookings, electoral support for Democrats-- or, more accurately, withdrawal of support for Republicans-- happened nationally and in every kind of county, in fact more so in suburban and rural areas that traditionally support Republicans than in big city counties where Democratic support is already maxed out.

New England is pretty iffy territory for Republicans to begin with and the single Republican House member in the region was defeated-- and defeated in a largely rural district (Maine's second) by a candidate who campaigned on his own record in the state legislature as a progressive Democrat. There are 67 counties in the region. All 67 saw an increase in voters support for Democrats running for the House. That's astounding.

Pennsylvania also has 67 counties and 66 of them showed increases for Democrats. Only Bucks County bucked the trend and showed a slight increase for the Republican candidate, although this was a very specific situation about the 2 candidates, rather than about the two parties. In 2016 Republican Senate incumbent Pat Toomey was reelected against a very weak Democrat 51.9% to 46.4%. In 2018, Democratic incumbent Casey Bob Casey pulverized a weak Republican challenger 56.2% to 42.2%.

But where the trend became the most apparent was in very Republican areas where Trump did well in 2016-- every one of Montana's 56 counties saw an increase in support for Democrats and in 53 of them, the increase was double digit. Every county in North Dakota swung towards the Democrats, same in Trump's top two state's-- Wyoming, where every one of the 23 counties saw Democratic support increase, and West Virginia, where all 55 counties went bluer by double digits. Another mega-state for Trump in 2016 was Oklahoma. Of 77 counties, 75 went in a Democratic director, including all the population centers and virtually the entire eastern part of the state swung blue by double digits. Idaho-- 42 or the 44 counties swung towards the Democrats, as did every single county in Iowa, almost all the counties in Michigan and most of them right across the rest of the Midwest: Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Illinois, Missouri; even throw in Kentucky! Republicans still won more votes than Democrats did in many of these counties in red states, of course, but the counties with the bigger populations tended to swing over to the Democrats. 60% of the nation’s voters lived in Democratic-led counties, compared with 40% of voters residing in counties where Republicans held the advantage. "More importantly," explained Brookings, "in a vast majority of counties-- even in those won by Republicans in 2018-- more voters favored Democrats in 2018 than in 2016... In a majority of counties (2,445 of 3,111)0-- irrespective of whether the final 2018 vote favored Republican or Democratic candidates-- there was a positive D-R margin shift between 2016 and 2018 (meaning either a greater Democratic advantage or a smaller Republican advantage).

Counties With "Republican" Attributes Showed Greatest 2018 Democratic Voting Margin Gains

How demographically distinct are the counties that registered the greatest increases in Democratic support (or reductions in Republican support)? To assess this, it is useful to look at attributes of residents in counties that showed a sharp rise in D-R margins.

The 2016 election exit poll results made plain the attributes that differentiated Republican (Trump) voters from Democratic (Clinton) voters. While Trump voters were more commonly categorized as being whites without college degrees, older persons and native-born Americans, Clinton voters were more strongly associated as being racial minorities, persons below age 45, and foreign-born Americans.

Table 1 examines the population attributes of U.S. counties with the objective of understanding how those with the highest 2016-2018 gains in D-R margins (gains greater than 10) differ from all counties with these attributes. It makes this comparison separately for counties that voted Democratic and those that voted Republican in 2018 because, as discussed earlier, both groups exhibited increased D-R margins (or reductions in their negative D-R margins).

Counties with increased D-R margins tend to have “Republican leaning” attributes, when compared with all counties: greater shares of non-college whites and persons over age 45, and smaller shares of minorities and persons who are foreign born. This occurs among both Democratic-voting and Republican-voting counties, and suggests that there was a shift toward Democratic support in counties that helped elect Donald Trump in 2016.

2018 Democratic Margins Increased In States Key To The 2020 Election

The victorious party in the 2020 presidential election will rely on the Electoral College rather than the popular vote. A comparison of 2018 House voting results with those of the 2016 presidential election makes plain that the there is ample opportunity for a 2020 Democratic win. Map 3 depicts states where Democrats and Republicans won the cumulative state level House votes.

It differs from the results of the 2016 presidential map wherein the Republican candidate (Trump) won more than 270 Electoral College votes, based on winning support from states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. As shown in Map 3, all of those states registered Democratic advantages in their 2018 House elections. If those results hold for the 2020 election, the Democratic candidate would receive 293 electoral votes—enough to win the presidency.

...[M]any have argued that the 2018 House elections were a referendum on President Trump. If this is the case, then the broad shifts toward greater Democratic support-- spilling over into a vast majority of Trump-won counties-- could be ripe for harvesting by the right Democratic challenger to Trump in 2020.

Bloomberg Could Have Made A Real Difference Instead Of Wasting Over $100 Million That Flipped One Seat, Electing A Pointless Blue Dog

Bloomberg hates Trump. Very nice. Congratulations. He spends money expressing that hatred and plans to spend a lot more. Wonderful. If you run into him, you might say, "your country is grateful, Mr. Bloomberg." But that doesn't mean it's time for the country to saddle itself with another out-of-touch, reactionary billionaire, even if one demonstrably less horrible than Trump.

Earlier this week, Bloomberg was in DC promoting Paris to Pittsburgh, a film about Climate Change he financed. Bloomberg told his audience that the brain-dead fake president "really could learn a lot from towns and cities featured in the documentary and which are taking action on climate change... “If he’s not willing to listen to his own administration’s scientific advisers-- and he isn’t-- he should at least listen to the people in this film."

Let me take a moment away from this post to urge you to watch the two and a half minute trailer for Paris to Pittsburgh, something I would say was a great and socially useful way for Bloomberg to spend some of his cash:



By now you've probably seen Chris Hayes' meme and 30-second video suggesting how to efficiently watch the 2020 campaigns unfold. Bloomberg has a (what he and his team think is a self-serving) corollary: "Every voter should ask the candidates not just what do you promise to do, but also what have you done, what have you delivered and how can we implement in a practical way your proposals."

Bloomberg was a Republican mayor of New York City. He switched to being an independent in the middle of his second term and ran as an independent/Republican for his third. And last year, somewhat incongruously, he switched parties and "became" a Democrat.

His political operation is completely staffed by yesteryear's, washed-up conservative Fox-Democrat types, like Doug Schoen, Howard Wolfson, Kevin Sheekey (an actual slime-ball Republican), Bradley Tusk (a Google and Uber lobbyist)... the kind of campaign operatives that make progressives wonder why they bother identifying with the Democratic Party.

Last year Bloomberg put over $100 million into electoral politics and left it to Wolfson to oversee. Today Wolfson puffs himself up and struts around claiming of the 24 Democratic congressional candidates, he spent (Bloomberg's) money on, 21 won, implying it was his Independence USA PAC that made the difference. That's a joke. That $110 or so million was appreciated by many candidates but made the win/lose difference in exactly one district: OK-05 (Oklahoma City), where they managed to upset the applecart in a way NO ONE expected. Yep, Bloomberg's millions elected exactly one Democrat: Kendra Horn, a cowardly conservative Blue Dog with an "F" voting record already-- with a miserable 42.86 crucial vote score. Most election experts agree that she's the most likely freshman to lose her seat in 2020. And no one will care other than the people who work for her.

But virtually all the Democrats Bloomberg spent money on are conservative, status quo types, mostly Blue Dogs and New Dems. In fact, going down the entire list of the candidates the Independence USA PAC spent on, only 3 winners-- Mike Levin (CA). Lauren Underwood (IL) and Donna Shalala (FL)-- haven't joined either the New Dems or Blue Dogs. Progressives who ran in 2018 universally say they were treated with contempt and disdain by the Bloomberg machine and, other than Levin, who was well-connected with establishment shit-heads, not a single progressive got one cent from Bloomberg's Independence USA PAC.

A still-angry Wisconsin Democratic Party official told me pretty much what I'm hearing from progressive activists in every campaign I go to. He was angry Bloomberg refused to back Randy Bryce. "Randy's race would have been perfect for Bloomberg. Relatively cheap media market, tight public polling, and a Republican being financed by the biggest villain out there: Paul Ryan. Problem is, a progressive iron worker is seen by Bloomberg as 'the help,' not the member of Congress. Whether it was Randy’s Latino heritage, his progressive bonafides, or his lack of a college degree, Mayor Stop-and-Frisk saw Randy Bryce as a sub class of human, not worth his time or money." Whoa!

This is where Bloomberg's money went, rather than to any of the candidates who backed the issues Bernie identified as a way forward for the party and country.

• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)- $5,094,633
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)- $4,458,187
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)- $2,891,589
• Steven Horsford (New Dem-NV)- $2,828,601
• Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI)- $2,632,614
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- $2,417,604
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)- $2,216,131
• Lauren Underwood (D-IL)- $2,160,984
• Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA)- $1,709,787
• Nancy Soderberg (LOST-FL)- $1,623,370
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- $1,453,520
• Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)- $1,317,424
• Carolyn Long (LOST-WA)- $1,260,281
• Carolyn Bourdeaux (LOST-GA)- $1,048,672
• Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)- $998,271
• Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN)- $721,836
• Mike Levin (D-CA)- $686,722
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- $646,255
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- $429,664
• Jason Crow (New Dem-CO)- 244,583
• Chrissy Houlahan (New Dem-PA)- $212,766
• Donna Shalala (D-FL)- $142,615
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)- 130,879
• Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)- $130,000

The mighty Bloomberg machine purposefully-- and with a real vengeance-- ignored actual progressive candidates from coast to coast-- and if you look at the races where Democrats came closest to flipping a red seat, the moment Bloomberg's people got an inkling the Democrat was a progressive, they refused to spend money in the district. Bloomberg ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS prefers conservative Republicans (like himself) to progressive Democrats. These seven races, pitting solid progressive Democrats against conservative Republicans, would likely have all flipped from red to blue had Bloomberg's Independence USA PAC agreed to spend significant money in them. Instead he spent ZERO:

• CA-50-- Duncan Hunter (R-51.7%) v Ammar Campa-Najjar (D-48.3%)
• IA-04-- Steve King (R-50.3%) v J.D. Scholten (D-47.0%)
• MI-06-- Fred Upton (R-50.2%) v Matt Longjohn (D-45.7%)
• NE-02-- Don Bacon (R-51.0%) v Kara Eastman (D-49.0%)
• NY-24-- John Katko (R-52.6%) v Dana Balter (D-47.4%)
• NY-27-- Chris Collins (R-49.1%) v Nate McMurray (D-48.8%)
• TX-10-- Michael McCaul (R-51.1%) v Mike Siegel (D-46.8%)

Bloomberg could have made a real difference-- instead, he elected a pointless Blue Dog who votes with the Republicans and who will likely be defeated next time she faces the voters.