The Democratic Establishment Freak-Out

That depends on what you mean by "Democrats"

That there is a Stop Bernie movement among the Democratic Party leaders instead of a Stop Republican Oligarch Michael Bloomberg Movement tells you all you will ever need to know about the Democratic Establishment. As a cohort, they are less than worthless. Joe Biden was their anointed Jeb Bush for the 2020 election cycle. And now they are reduced to whining that Tom Steyer's money in South Carolina is obliterating a firewall among elderly rural African-American voters and putting the final nail into Biden's political coffin. Maybe they should have realized that, politically speaking, Biden has been a zombie/corpse for decades.

With Mayo Pete demonstrating the hollowness of his flimsy support outside of wine cellars, their new best hope is the free-spending-- on them-- Republican oligarch. This is the lowest the party establishment has ever sunk. Believe me, none of them were happy yesterday when they woke up to Matt Viser's Washington Post delineation of the massiveness of Bernie's win in Nevada the night before. Let's hope Bernie smashes the party establishment to smithereens on the day after the convention and breathes new life into a wearing, geriatric Democratic Party.

The next Stop Bernie attack will be that if he's on the top of the ticket, incumbents in red and purple districts could lose. The most Republican-voting assholes among Democrats in Congress, Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Ben McAdams (UT), have both said they won't vote for Bernie. Neither, however, votes for virtually anything that's important to Democratic voters. So why should anyone care if they lose their seats? It's arguable that the Democratic Party will be much better off without members in Congress like Brindisi and McAdams, especially if they can pick up actual Democrats in other GOP-held districts, like, for example, Kara Eastman in Nebraska, Mike Siegel in Texas, Jon Hoadley in Michigan,  Jennifer Christie in Indiana, Tom Winter in Montana, Chris Armitage in Washington, Liam O'Mara in California, J.D. Scholten in Iowa...

Progressives in the House tell me that Brindisi is the worst Democrat in Congress and they all actually hope he's defeated just so that they won't gave to hear him constantly whining about how anything they try to do for the American people will cause him to lose his re-election battle. One senior Democrat told me he had never hoped for a colleague to lose before, but "I'd rather see a Republican in that seat than Brindisi. He's the worst lily-livered excuse for a Democrat I've ever seen." Meanwhile McAdams openly boasted that if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination he would distance himself from them. "My ideas are different than theirs," he said. "So as long as people understand that I’m going to be independent of any candidate and really be true to my district, I think that’s most important." But he isn't true to his district-- not at all. There are 4 counties or parts of counties that make up his district (UT-04). Salt Lake County has 5 times the number of voters than the other 3 combined. Here's how they voted in the 2016 Democratic caucuses, when Bernie was up against the status quo conservative Democrat McAdams backed:

• Salt Lake- Bernie 78.8%
• Utah- 85.3%
• Sanpete- Bernie 84.9%
• Juab- Bernie 77.5%

Yeah, so... so much for this lying sack of excrement being true to his constituents or his district, unless he's talking about the Republicans in his district. His district wants change and Biden is the no-change candidate. In 2016, they voted so overwhelmingly for Bernie because Bernie was-- and still is-- the change candidate. McAdams is a liar, trying to justify being so outrageously out of step with Democrats and independents in Utah.

OK, back to that report from Mike Debonis and Michael Scherer in The Post about the establishment's newest gambit to derail the working class champion. (If you don't want to read it, just approach Joy Reid if you dare; she's got a sickening version of it on infinite replay.) Debonis and Scherer wrote that "many Democratic House and Senate candidates are approaching a dramatic shift in their campaigns, as they recalibrate to include praise of capitalism and distance themselves from the national party. Top campaign strategists from both parties view Sanders’s success as a potentially tectonic event, which could narrow the party’s already slim hopes of retaking the Senate majority and fuel GOP dreams of reclaiming the House, which it lost amid a Democratic romp in 2018."

The most obvious people to go to to bolster this talking point would be representatives of Team Hillary and-- where that differs at all-- to the Republican wing of the party, like Rahm Emanuel. They went to one of Rahm's would-be clones. "I can tell you that there are a lot of down-ballot jitters based on my conversations with my former colleagues," said Steve Israel," who led the DCCC through some of its biggest losses in contemporary party history. He was kind enough to validate some GOP propaganda for them: "Trump is going to offer the American people this choice: Do you want to continue building the economy or do you want to lurch toward socialism? And that is a real powerful argument in the Democratic districts that Trump won in 2016."

Internal polling and analytics completed last week by former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg’s campaign projected that Sanders may be the only presidential candidate to win delegates in every state and district on March 3, delivering him a lead of 350 to 400 out of 1,357 delegates set to be awarded unless race dynamics change, according to a person familiar with the data who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly.

Because of Democratic rules that give no delegates to candidates who scores less than 15 percent of the vote in a state or congressional district, Sanders could build a delegate lead far greater than his advantage in the popular vote.

If Democrats are awakening to a recognition that Sanders could pull away from the rest of the field, there is far less consensus about whether his nomination will help President Trump win reelection. Sanders’s power to turn out young and blue-collar voters or suburbanites is not fully tested, the ceiling of Trump’s support is poorly defined in a two-way race and the senator from Vermont has not yet been subjected to a negative paid advertising effort.

“Our data shows that all of our potential nominees, including Sanders, have a pathway to victory, but it isn’t guaranteed,” said Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC that has polled heavily in the key presidential swing states. “This election will be close regardless of who we nominate.”

But there is far less flexibility for candidates in smaller districts. That has prompted Republicans to celebrate as they look to reclaim ground they lost in 2018 when largely affluent suburbs rebelled against the GOP in a protest of Trump.

“The Democrats’ embrace of socialism is going to cost them their majority-- I mean, it’s as simple as that,” said Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Bernie is about as good a contrast as we could have ever hoped for.”

Bear in mind that Tom Emmer-- and the economic royalists inside the Democratic Party-- are repeating, virtually word for word, what the conservatives said about FDR, who they also-- unflinchingly and 4 two decades-- labeled a Socialist!!!!! I might remind you that, in every possible way, Michael Bloomberg is the perfect antithesis of Franklin Roosevelt. This is what happened when the conservatives, in some cases of both parties, went to the voters with the Socialism!!!! message against FDR and the Democratic Party:

1932

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 22,821,277 (57.4%) to 15,761,254 (39.7%)
• electoral vote 472 to 59 (GOP carried 6 states)
• Senate- 58-37 (GOP lost 11 seats)
• House- 313-117 (GOP lost 101 seats)

1936

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 27,747,636 (60.8%) to 16,679,543 (36.5%)
• electoral vote 523 to 8 (GOP carried 2 states)
• Senate- 74-17 (GOP lost 5 seats)
• House- 334-88 (GOP lost 15 seats)

1940-- when the VP nominee was an actual Socialist

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 27,313,945 (54.7%) to 22,347,744 (44.8%)
• electoral vote 449 to 82 (GOP carried 10 states)
• Senate- 66-27 (Dems lost 2 seats)
• House- 267-162 (GOP lost 7 seats)

1944

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 25,612,916 (53.4%) to 22,017,929 (45.9%)
• electoral vote 432 to 99 (GOP carried 12 states)
• Senate- 58-37 (no net change)
• House- 242-191 (GOP lost 18 seats)

Alan Grayson (D-FL) is taking a time-out from Congress. I spoke with him yesterday and he told me that "In every election cycle for many years now, the GOP tries to play mind games with Democrats to turn them against their own leaders, whom the GOP says are never 'moderate' enough to win-- except when they do. And whenever those Democratic leaders actually are progressive, the GOP finds willing co-conspirators in that mind-game among right-wing Democrats. The term 'unelectable' is simply a weapon that right-wing Democrats deploy against progressives, time after time after time. You could make a good argument that Trump actually is further to the right than Bernie is to the left. Where, oh where, are the 'moderate' GOP politicos, wringing their hands over that? Why is it that when Bernie says something lefty, he’s called a socialist, and when Trump does something racist or crazy or just stupid, he’s 'motivating his base?'"





I asked a few members of Congress and some candidates for Congress how they see this dynamic themselves. I started with Los Angeles' liberal lion, Ted Lieu, who endorsed Kamala Harris with whom he had worked closely on several of his legislative priorities both in Sacramento and in Washington. He hasn't endorsed anyone since she withdrew and told me that he will support whoever wins the Democratic nomination. He added that he also noted "that the conventional wisdom of Washington insiders was wrong about Obama, wrong about Trump and currently contradicted by the actual voter data when it comes to Sanders. For 5 years the polls have shown Sanders beats Trump in head to head matchups. And in a recent Emerson poll this month, it shows Sanders was the only Democratic candidate to beat Trump in a head to head matchup. The notion that in November a voter will turn out and vote for Sanders and then somehow vote for the down ballot GOP congressional candidate is simply not supported by the data."

Tom Suozzi is a New Dem from Long Island, a serious legislator with serious ideas about how to serve his constituents. We don't agree on issues as much as Ted Lieu and I do but we do agree about the whole party coming together after Bernie is the nominee. Tom endorsed one of the other presidential candidates but told me yesterday that "A big problem in America today is that too many people view their fellow Americans with contempt. It is ok to disagree and disagree strongly, but contempt will destroy us. Just because you don’t agree with someone in their choice of candidate or their position on a particular issue, it does not mean it is ok to view them with contempt. If we are to defeat Donald Trump, we need everyone from Bernie and AOC, all the way to Bloomberg and Biden and everyone in between. If we can’t hold that coalition together, we lose. Campaigns are tough, and candidates and their surrogates play to win, but everyone must recognize that when the dust settles, we need to unite behind the winner, even if it wasn’t your first choice. If we don’t, then Trump wins again." I have no doubt that Tom Suozzi will be enthusiastically introducing Bernie to his constituents when Bernie visits Huntington and Hicksville next fall.

Tomas Ramos, a Bronx-based Berniecrat who is campaigning for an open congressional seat on the same set of issues Bernie is campaigning on, told me last night that "The notion that if Bernie is at the top of the ticket we lose Congress is simply not true. Bernie created a movement the first time around and now the movement has only gotten bigger, with young and old people alike. When I’m out door knocking I ask my voters who are they supporting for president, the common answer is Bernie. People are more excited for Bernie than ever before. The voters in my district know that we need to beat Trump and they know that Bernie is the guy to do so."

Liam O'Mara, a history professor taking on Trumpist Rep. Ken Calvert in Riverside County, California, pointed out that "Democrats have struggled to hold onto congressional majorities, but one key reason for that is their tepid stances on the issues, their frequent preference for right-wing economics, and their refusal to push for policies which are broadly popular. Congress often has an approval rating in the single digits. The drift to the right since the late 1980s has been a demonstrable failure. We have lost most statehouses and most presidential elections, and struggled to hold onto either chamber of Congress. Something has to give. The way forward for Democrats is to embrace progressivism. This isn't the 1970s-- the country has caught up with the progressive agenda on a wide range of issues. Most Americans oppose corporate money's control of our elections. Most Americans support single-payer health care. Most Americans oppose our interventionist foreign policy and our many wars. Most Americans accept the consensus on global warming and want serious action. Most Americans distrust the bankers who keep crashing our economy, and the neoliberal trade deals that have undermined workers, and want better oversight. The list goes on and on. Sanders is doing well because people are tired of the same old message. He is bringing new people into the political process, talking about issues that affect most of our lives, and he's been winning over independents and even conservatives. If Democrats really want to control Congress and the White House, there is a path to both available. I can tell you that in my own race, running a respectful campaign which will talk to anyone and focusses on policy rather than partisanship has been resonating. It is something we should see more of in this country, not less.

Milwaukie Mayor Mark Gamba, running for the Oregon seat held by Blue Dog Kurt Schrader, who agrees with Republicans on crucial issues more than with Democrats. " Look, people get all caught up in a variety of complicated theories about what some candidate will or won't do to down ticket races," Gamba told me yesterday. "I think it's much more simple than that. The vast majority of the American people have been getting screwed by neo-liberal, profits first, policies enacted by both Republicans and 'centerist' Democrats for over 40 years. For simplicity's sake, let's call that the status-quo. In 2016 they were desperate for that to change. They still are. Trump has proven himself to be even more blatant about screwing everyone but the 1%. The way we bring out an excited electorate is to offer them real solutions to their problems-- Sanders offers that. So do about 100 people running tough races against incumbent members of the status-quo all over America. What the talking heads are truly frightened of, is Sanders AND an army of like-minded people getting elected and enacting real change that supports the 99%, taxes the bloody rich for a change, stops climate chaos and reduces the constant misery for a few hundred million Americans. So we will continue to see all kinds of half assed theories telling us why electing Sanders will doom us all. Never forget that the talking heads and the media conglomerates they work for are all part of the 1%.

Kim Williams is the Central Valley progressive running for the seat occupied by Blue Dog Jim Costa. "Since last summer," she explained, "I’ve knocked on thousands of doors. I’ve heard people’s stories, shook their hands, and listened to their dreams for their children. None of these conversations align with the establishment’s understanding of America. One hundred and forty million Americans have been left behind. They don’t see themselves in the booming economy and they don’t see themselves in the national news. Sanders is the only candidate that acknowledges the very real challenges people face and actually offers solutions. It’s absurd to keep attacking him on his electability when he keeps winning, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that he’s never really been attacked when the media has been unrelenting in their negative coverage. But while pundits panic over the presidential election, we see something very different on the ground. Being a progressive candidate with a policy platform that aligns with Sanders has been a tremendous asset, not a burden. In fact, if someone wanted to coin a phrase for down-ballot races, I think referring to candidates as “Bernie Democrats” would actually be quite powerful. It immediately conveys policy positions and lets normally disenfranchised voters know you’re on their side. This might shake the establishment, but it energizes the majority. And they will ultimately decide who represents them."

Arizona workers rights champion and progressive candidate for Congress, Eva Putzova, was a Bernie delegate to last cycle's DNC. Today she's running on an Arizona version of that platform. "The assertion that a Sanders nomination wlll result in Democrats losing congressional seats is ridiculous. The opposite is the case," she said. "In my district, the momentum generated by Sanders campaign is already firing up the base of the party-- youth, people of color, women, workers and climate activists, and even moderates who are starting to realize that Sanders is fighting to make their lives better and more secure. From my perspective, and that of my campaign, if Sanders wins the nomination it increases my chances to win the primary in August and the general election in November. I share Rep. Lieu's assessment that voters who turn out for Sanders will not vote for GOP candidates down-ballot. All Democrats, particularly progressive Democrats, will benefit if Sanders is at the top of the ticket."

"In NY-25, the issues that comprise Bernie Sanders’s platform are the ones that most enthuse our Democratic base," said Rochester progressive Robin Wilt. "As I go door-to-door, Bernie’s platform resonates with the voters whom I engage. I want to clarify that when I mention the Democratic base, I’m not talking about the elite Democratic establishment that comprise fewer than 1% of our Democratic electorate. We recently had occasion to histogram the age of the Democratic Committee in the jurisdiction of Brighton, NY, where I serve in town government. Both the mean and the average age were…wait for it… 62 years of age. The Democratic elite are not representative of the registered base of Democrats. They never have been, and they never will be. When we continue to ignore the voice of the overwhelming majority of the electorate, in favor of amplifying the voices of the establishment that increasingly does not resemble the registered base, we risk mistaking the will of party operatives with the will of the people. I was at the rally at Queensbridge Park. I have been canvassing my Congressional District. The masses believe in the future promised by Bernie Sanders, not the cynicism expressed by an increasingly detached party elite."

War Pigs Belong In The GOP

Hard to recognize the War Pig in the picture above? Trump? Mike Pompeo? Tom Cotton? Lindsey Graham? Miss McConnell? Kevin McCarthy? Could be any of them. Also could be Status Quo Joe, Mayo Pete or any of the 8 Democratic war mongers who voted with Trump against the War Powers Resolution Thursday. Don't forget the names:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)

No Bernie supporters there, that's for sure. In fact... that looks like a slate of Status Quo Joe backers, doesn't it? I don't wonder why either. Yesterday Ally Mutnick and Sarah Ferris wrote for Politico that "A slate of endangered House Democrats is coalescing behind Joe Biden for president as the Iowa caucuses approach-- a surge of support triggered by fears that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren at the top of the ticket would cost them their seats. More than a dozen swing-seat freshmen have taken part in at least one private call session with Biden, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg in recent weeks. A handful have already gravitated toward the former vice president, and more are expected to follow before Democrats start voting on Feb. 3, according to interviews with 15 lawmakers, aides and campaign strategists."

Rot gut New York right-winger Anthony Brindisi, a chair of the Blue Dog caucus and a proud war-monger, told Politico, "I’m looking at all the moderates in the race. If we’re going to campaign on issues like Medicare for All and free college for everybody, we’re not going to have a winning message in 2020." Brindisi and the other members from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party are whining that claim they "have studied internal polling showing Biden outperforming other Democratic contenders in head-to-heads with Trump in their respective districts."




Conservative New Dem Cedric Richmond is one of the whiners, although he is in no jeopardy whatsoever, just someone who hates progressives and progressive ideas. Richmond's super blue Louisiana district (PVI is D+25) would vote for a pile of shit-- which they do in terms of their congressman-- rather than a Republican. Obama won the district with 75.8% in 2012 and Hillary did nearly as well in 2016. Carefully gerrymandered to pack as many African-Americans into one seat as possible, LA-02 is just 28% white and takes in most of the New Orleans metro before meandering west and then north to include the African-American neighborhoods of Baton Rouge. Republicans don't bother running candidates against him and he's considered a congressman-for-life, even though he's an avatar of a status quo that has served his constituents very poorly. Co-chair in charge of black voters for the Status Quo Joe campaign, he said that "The wrong person at the top of the ticket-- and I’m not saying who that is-- there would be down-ballot carnage all across the country, and I think that people are starting to recognize it."

Biden has 33 current members of the House backing him, most of whom are conservatives, primarily Blue Dogs and New Dems. Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA) is a conservative Biden backer who voted for endless war last week. Almost all of his supporters have "F" rated voting records from ProgressivePunch. One, Conor Lamb (PA), endorsed him last week, saying he's "definitely concerned that someone’s who more on the fringes would have a hard time winning our state themselves, and I want a Democratic candidate to win Pennsylvania and win the presidency."

Another extremely right-wing (for a Democrat) freshman is Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT). Now that Van Drew has left the party for the GOP, McAdams is among the half dozen worst House Dems, all with far worse voting records than Independent-- former Republican-- Justin Amash this cycle:

• Justin Amash (I-MI)- 55.36%
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- 32.14%
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- 30.36%
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 28.57
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- 28.57
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 25.0%
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 23.21, widely considered the most likely Dem to follow Van Drew into the GOP

McAdams told Politico that if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination he would distance himself from them. "My ideas are different than theirs," he said. "So as long as people understand that I’m going to be independent of any candidate and really be true to my district, I think that’s most important." But he isn't true to his district, not at all. There are 4 counties or parts of counties that make up his district (UT-04). Salt Lake County has 5 times the number of voters than the other 3 combined. Here's how they voted in the 2016 Democratic caucuses, when Bernie was up against the status quo conservative Democrat McAdams backed:

• Salt Lake- Bernie 78.8%
• Utah- 85.3%
• Sanpete- Bernie 84.9%
• Juab- Bernie 77.5%

Yeah, so, so much for this lying sack of excrement being true to his district. His district wants change and Biden is the no-change candidate. They voted so overwhelmingly for Bernie because Bernie is the change candidate. McAdams is a liar, trying to justify being so outrageously out of step with Democrats in his district.

Progressives have long fought back the notion that a Democratic nominee must pick up support from independents and even Republicans in order to beat Trump.

They argue that robust voter turnout-- turning out the kinds of numbers that Sanders and Warren have seen at events across the country-- will be key to winning back states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Klobuchar's congressional allies, like freshman Rep. Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN), argue the opposite.

“I tell people all the time, enjoy reading your national polls, but care about six of them," Phillips said, arguing that the race would instead come down to a few battleground states mainly in the Midwest. "That’s what this next election is about."

“We’re no longer a country that is really fighting for their respective bases," said Phillips, who organized the call with Klobuchar and his colleagues this week. "It’s fighting for the diminishing number of people who really do vote on both sides of the aisle."

Let's see Dean explain how Klobuchar, whose entire case is that the Midwest is clamoring for her-- is immediately eliminated in the first round of Iowa caucus voting. You need 15% to proceed too round two. According to the Real Car Politics polling average for Iowa, Klobuchar is at 5.7%, behind poll average leaders Bernie (21.3%), Mayo Pete (21.0%), Status Quo Joe (17.7%) and Elizabeth (17.0%). The brand new Iowa Poll from the Des Moines Register also shows Klobuchar with virtually no chance of emerging from the caucuses with any delegates-- and that the likely Iowa caucus-goers want progressive candidates, not status quo establishment shills:

• Bernie- 20% (up 5 points)
• Elizabeth- 17% (up 1 point)
• Mayo Pete- 16% (down 9 points)
• Status Quo Joe- 15% (stasis)
• Klobuchar- 6% (stasis)
• Yang- 5% (up 2 points)

Are There Any Districts With Democratic Incumbents Where Trump Will Have Coattails?

There are 22 congressional districts that Trump won in 2016 that turned around and elected a non-incumbent Democrat two years later. None of the 7 California freshmen are included:

• CA-10- Josh Harder (F)-- Hillary beat Trump 48.5% to 45.5%
• CA-21- TJ Cox (F)-- Hillary beat Trump 55.2% to 39.7%
• CA-25- Katie Hill (F)-- Hillary beat Trump 50.3% to 43.6% [see below]
• CA-39- Gil Cisneros (F)-- Hillary beat Trump 51.5% to 42.9%
• CA-45- Katie Porter (F)-- Hillary beat Trump 49.8% to 44.4%
• CA-48- Harley Rouda (F)-- Hillary beat Trump 47.9% to 46.2%
• CA-49- Mike Levin (B)-- Hillary beat Trump 50.7% to 43.2%

Unfortunately most of the Democratic candidates were picked by the DCCC and are weak, flawed and are open to defeat in a non-wave cycle. Each candidate's ProgressivePunch score follows their name. (Katie Porter, who beat the terrible DCCC preferred candidate, is an exception and has been a much better member of Congress than the others.) My guess is that, with the exception of scandal-rocked Katie Hill, they will all be returned to Congress in 2020, largely because of Trump's presence at the top of the ticket. 2022 could proven deadly for the weakest of them, especially Cisneros, Rouda and Harder. The only 2020 rematch with a former incumbent-- at least scheduled so far-- is between Cox and David Valadao.

The bigger problem for Democrats, of course, are the 22 seats in districts Trump won. Most of the new Democratic incumbents are weak and uninspiring. Chosen by the DCCC to appeal to Republicans, few of them can get much positive enthusiasm from the Democratic base and, of course, they don't actually appeal to Republicans, just to imaginary centrists who don't exist in the real world. Most of them are likely to be safe next year with Trump leading the Republican change, even though this were Trump 2016 districts and anti-Trump 2018 districts,

• GA-06- Lucy McBath (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.3% to 46.8%
• IA-01- Abby Finkenauer (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.7% to 45.2%
• IA-03- Cindy Axne (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.5% to 45.0%
• IL-14- Lauren Underwood (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.7% to 44.8%
• ME-02- Jared Golden (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 51.4% to 41.1%
• MI-08- Elissa Slotkin (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 50.6% to 43.9%
• MI-11- Haley Stevens (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 49.7% to 45.3%
• MN-02- Angie Craig (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 46.5% to 45.3%
• NH-01- Chris Pappas (B)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.2% to 46.6%
• NJ-02- Jeff Van Drew (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 50.6% to 46.0%
• NJ-03- Andy Kim (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 51.4% to 45.2%
• NJ-11- Mikie Sherrill (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.8% to 47.9%
• NM-02- Xochitl Torres Small (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 50.1% to 39.9%
• NV-03- Susie Lee (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 47.5% to 46.5%
• NY-11- Max Rose (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 53.6% to 43.8%
• NY-19- Antonio Delgado (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 50.8% to 44.0%
• NY-22- Anthony Brindisi (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 54.8% to 39.3%
• OK-05- Kendra Horn (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 53.2% to 39.8%
• SC-01- Joe Cunningham (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 53.5% to 40.4%
• UT-04- Ben McAdams (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 39.1% to 32.4%
• VA-02- Elaine Luria (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.8% to 45.4%
• VA-07- Abigail Spanberger (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 50.5% to 44.0%

Writing for Politico Sunday, Sarah Ferris and Ally Mutnick note that ousted Republicans are plotting rematches as impeachment revs up and that former GOP lawmakers think having Trump on the ballot is their ticket back to the House, particularly during the polarizing impeachment debate." Keep in mind, that although nationally impeachment numbers are high and growing, in some districts won by Trump in 2016, the pro-impeachment numbers are lower. Ferris and Mutnick start with NY-22, where an especially bad far right extremist, Claudia Tenney, lost her seat to a really bad conservative Democrat, Blue Dog piece of crap Anthony Brindisi. He beat her last year 127,715 (50.9%) to 123,242 (49.1%). Brindisi won in the two biggest counties-- Oneida and Broome, where voters are looking for a real Democrat, not a Republican-lite Democrat. Brindisi is about as far right as you can go without being an actual Republican. He has the worst voting record of any Democrat in the House, tied with fellow Blue Dogs Joe Cunningham and Jeff Van Drew at 20.00%, which is a worse score than Republican John Katko (in the district next door), in fact worse than 3 Republicans and former Republican, now Independent Justin Amash (32.86).

[W]ith Trump back on the ballot in 2020, Tenney and her supporters see a chance to make her comeback.

“I think it’s going to be a good year,” Tenney said in an interview. “In a presidential year, I think we’ll be able to get some of those gains back.”

And she’s not the only one. A series of ex-Republican lawmakers who lost narrowly in Trump strongholds in 2018 are plotting rematches next year with dreams of riding on the president’s coattails.

Particularly amid an impeachment debate that has polarized the country, the former lawmakers think a juiced-up Trump turnout will lift them past their Democratic opponents and potentially help Republicans win back the House.

Former GOP Rep. David Young is running against freshman Democrat Cindy Axne in a district that includes Des Moines, Iowa-- a repeat of the tight 2018 race. Former GOP Rep. Karen Handel is seeking a rematch against Rep. Lucy McBath, a Democrat representing suburban Atlanta.

Another former Republican congressman, Rod Blum, could be eyeing a challenge to freshman Democratic Rep. Abby Finkenauer in northeast Iowa; he protested outside Finkenauer’s office this month at a Trump campaign-sponsored event to condemn impeachment. And former Republican Rep. Mike Bishop has yet to publicly rule out a run against Democrat Elissa Slotkin in Michigan.

“It was a tough year, just not a great environment for Republicans,” Tenney said of 2018. “I think the environment now is different.”

But Tenney and other the congressional alumni may not be able to count on Trump. His approval ratings are near historic lows for presidents heading into a second term, and freshman Democrats have worked hard to win over independents and moderate Republicans.

Public support is also growing for impeachment, with 45 percent of independents now backing it, compared to 32 opposed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll this week.

Still, Trump holds a grip over the Republican base that seems unshakable, even amid the ongoing investigation into alleged efforts by the president to withhold military aid unless Ukraine publicly investigated his political rivals.

Trump’s most ardent supporters have already begun organizing in Brindisi’s district, more than a year out from the next election. Pro-Trump groups staged protests outside the freshman Democrat’s office and at some of his public events-- including a town hall here in October-- to rally local support in New York’s 22nd Congressional District.

Many of those who have picketed, including Mount Vernon, N.Y. resident Gilda Ward, have focused squarely on Democrats’ impeachment push. And it doesn’t matter to them that Brindisi, one of the most vulnerable freshmen, remains one of seven holdouts in his caucus who oppose the impeachment inquiry.

If he did come out in favor, Ward predicts, “It would be a death knell.”

“I am totally opposed to any kind of impeachment,” she said in an interview after attending a Brindisi town hall. “It really bothers me, and it bothers many of us who voted for Trump.”

Tenney-- an enthusiastic Trump supporter who appeared alongside the president and his family at campaign events in 2018-- plans to once again embrace the president. The former congresswoman said that since announcing her campaign in late September, she’s gotten calls from Republican friends who say Trump is happy she’s running again.

Brindisi’s campaign is eager to zero in on his House opponent and avoid the presidential politics.

“This district has long turned the page on Claudia Tenney, who delivered for late night TV more than she ever did our district,” said Luke Jackson, a Brindisi campaign spokesperson.

Republicans are betting that if Trump remains popular with the GOP base, he could significantly ramp up turnout-- clawing back seats that were lost in the 2018 wipeout.

That includes the district where Tenney and Brindisi will battle it out next year. Trump won nearly 160,000 votes in the district in 2016. Turnout plummeted two years later when Tenney got less than 124,000 votes.

GOP campaign operatives are looking at the same math for Trump-backed districts across the country that are now held by Democrats.

Young said in an interview he is working to find Trump voters who stayed home in 2018 through a “data deep dive” as he plans his rematch against Axne. He added that he senses an energy from voters in his Des Moines-based district that are frustrated by Democrats’ “obsession with trying to remove the president.”

Trump won nearly 193,000 votes in Iowa's 3rd District in 2016. Young won just under 168,000 when he lost to Axne by 2 points two years later. Activists on both sides are motivated, Young said, but he argued Democrats neared their high-water mark in 2018. Axne came close to matching Hillary Clinton's 2016 vote total but Young won far fewer votes than Trump.

“In November 2018, the Democrats had high voter turnout, almost presidential levels,” Young said. “I think to some extent they may have peaked or are getting close to peaking, but Republicans have so much more room to grow.”

In the midterms, dozens of Democratic candidates outperformed Clinton in their districts. But it’s not clear if they achieved those margins because Trump voters stayed home. Those candidates likely owe their victories in part to two other factors: their ability to persuade Trump voters to back a Democrat for Congress as well as their skill at turning out Democratic voters who typically sit out the midterms.

Rob Simms, a top strategist for Handel, who is seeking a rematch with McBath in suburban Atlanta, blames her loss on high Democratic turnout caused by Democrat Stacey Abram's narrow loss for governor.

“The Democrats, really the Abrams campaign, did a tremendous job at bringing out voters who would not typically vote in an off year elections,” said Simms, a former executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Georgia will be more of a battleground in 2020, he said, and Republicans will be ready.

But particularly in suburban districts with highly-educated voters like Georgia's 6th, the momentum is moving away from the GOP and there may be a large chunk of persuadable voters up for grabs. Mitt Romney won the seat by 24 points in 2012 but Trump carried it by 1 point.

Fundraising appears to be an early advantage for McBath, too. The Georgia Democrat outraised Handel nearly 2 to 1 in the last quarter, and has a fundraising war chest of $1.3 million, compared to Handel’s roughly $630,000. Handel also has to clear a GOP primary before she can challenge McBath again.

Meanwhile, few ousted GOP lawmakers seem eager to try again in districts that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016. (Former California Republican David Valadao is a rare exception, as he tries to reclaim his Central Valley-based district that Trump lost by 15 points.)

Two Republicans who once represented suburban districts are running again in different, more GOP-friendly spots, an indication that they still view the climate as unfavorable in their old seats.

Republican Pete Sessions who lost a Dallas-area district is now running 100 miles south in Waco. And Darrell Issa, who retired in 2018 from a Clinton-won seat, is running in a neighboring San Diego district held by embattled GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter.

Still, Republican strategists see a path back to the House majority through the 31 Democratic-held seats that Trump won in 2016.

“The dynamics in ’20 are going to be much different,” Simms said of GOP chances in suburban Georgia. “We have an incumbent president. We have an incumbent senator who’s going to be on top of the ticket. Their campaigns are already organized and functioning and working in the state today.”

Tenney is not intelligent and made a big mistake calling Brindisi a leftist; she's doing the same thing again

I spoke with an old friend who's active in the Broome County Democratic Party, which was Brindisi's best county in 2018 and performed at a solid D+13 level for him. The county voted to reelect Kirsten Gillibrand as well, but turned against Andrew Cuomo, who lost to a little known Republican candidate, Mark Molinaro. Molinaro only scored 36.2% statewide but managed to beat Cuomo 50.7% to 43.6% in Broome. My friend pointed to Cuomo-hatred as a place where Brindisi is heading. "People here were eager to defeat Trump and Tenney last year. No one I know cared who the Democrat was. Brindisi represented an Assembly district far from here and few people knew how conservative he was; Tenney, of course, tried to paint him as a socialist. Now people are disappointed in Brindisi's conservatism and his lack of political courage. He may win next year because Democrats will be out in force to vote against Trump. But when Trump isn't on the ticket, he'll be in trouble." So, whose perspective is right, the Broome County party official or crackpot and obviously mentally ill Gilda Ward from Mt. Vernon?

UPDATE: Katie Hill

And if that isn't bad enough, look who already is getting ready to toss his Russian sailor's cap into the race, a genuine Trump jailbird/coffee-boy:

Worst Democraps In Congress-- Time For NRA Champion Anthony Brindisi

Brindisi addressing other right-wing fake Democrats

There are just 10 Democrats left who haven't come out for an impeachment inquiry. It's probably the final list-- cowardly careerists afraid of losing their seats. These are the final 10-- 9 Blue Dogs and someone who should be tossed out of the Progressive Caucus-- with Trump's 2016 win numbers in their districts:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 54.8%
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 53.5%
• Jared Golden (Coward-ME)- 51.4%
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 53.2%
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)- 49.3%
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- 39.1%
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 61.8%
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)- 53.6%
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 50.1
• Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)- 50.6%

Before we get into Brindisi, I want to just mention that DCCC chair Cheri Bustos and Señor Trumpanzee can hold a joint fundraiser for Jefferson Van Drew. Wouldn't that be clarifying? Van Drew was on Fox & Friends yesterday throwing shade at fellow Democrats for opening an impeachment inquiry. Trumpanzee tweeted "'All that’s swirling around us now is Impeachment. We talk about it day and night, it’s what’s on the news, there is NOTHING that has turned up that is Impeachable. Our founding fathers set impeachment to be extremely rare. We need to get good stuff done. Let the people vote... we are going to have an Election very shortly.' Rep. Jeff Van Drew, Democrat of New Jersey. @foxandfriends Thank you. Just another Witch Hunt by Nancy Pelosi and the Do Nothing Democrats!" Van Drew told Fox viewers that he doesn’t believe anything "turned up that is truly is impeachable" at this point.

I can understand why Collin Peterson is so scared of Trump voters. He's got a really hard core rural red district, filled with Trumpists. But none of the others do. Trump won marginally in the other districts. The second biggest Trump score was in Brindisi's upstate New York district-- all or part of 8 counties that wanted CHANGE, not Trump. How do I know? In 2016 these counties completely rejected the the status quo candidacy of Hillary Clinton. In fact of the 8 counties in Brindisi's district all 8 went to Bernie in the primary (listed in order of population):

• Oneida

• Bernie- 7,272
• Hillary- 6,054
• Trumpanzee- 10,830

• Broome

• Bernie- 9,176
• Hillary- 7,035
• Trumpanzee- 8,409

• Madison

• Bernie- 2,346
• Hillary- 1,880
• Trumpanzee- 2,968

• Herkimer

• Bernie- 1,755
• Hillary- 1,377
• Trumpanzee- 3,955

• Chenango

• Bernie- 1,494
• Hillary- 958
• Trumpanzee- 2,384

• Cortland

• Bernie- 1,878
• Hillary- 1,402
• Trumpanzee- 1,627

• Oswego

• Bernie- 3,066
• Hillary- 2,424
• Trumpanzee- 6,151

• Tioga

• Bernie- 1,825
• Hillary- 1,232
• Trumpanzee- 2,801

Last year the Republicans managed to lose the two biggest counties-- Oneida, Broome-- hold the 3rd biggest (Madison) by a virtual tie and lose Cortland by double digits. So win is Brindisi such a woos? I asked a member of Congress yesterday. He told me that all Brindisi ever does is whine about how anything the caucus wants to do that is even vaguely progressive. "Do you want to end my career?" is his one and only cpontribution to any discussion about anything. "And I bet he skips right over to Peter King and tells him everything he's heard from our side of the aisle. (Because he's one of the chairs of the Blue Dog caucus, Brindisi is privy to planning sessions so he's hearing a lot more than he should.)

The other day, Brindisi and the Republican next door, John Katko, made a joint statement to the media about opposing the beginning of an impeachment inquiry. Katko is an absolutely horrible member of Congress and, hopefully, the DCCC won't screw up the election again, which will mean he's replaced by progressive champion Dana Balter. But Brindisi is actually a worse-- and more destructive-- member of Congress than Katko is. And Brindisi has no primary. Cheri Bustos has threatened anyone who wants to primary him and, in fact, has been fundraising for him, even after his joint statement with Katko:

Brindisi is bad on just about everything. His ProgressivePunch score is not just an F-- it's tied with fellow Blue Dogs Jeff Van Drew (NJ) and Joe Cunningham (SC) as the worst Democratic record in Congress. His crucial vote score is exactly 20%. As a point of reference, conservative Republicans John Katko (NY) and Thomas Massie (KY) voted more progressively than he does, respectively 21.35% and 28.50%. Brian Fitzpatrick scored a 20.10% and Justin Amash's lifetime score in 32.86%. Amash is very conservative but his score for the current cycle is 57.78%. Compared that to Brindisi's 20.0%. And Brindisi sucks across the board. When Jim Clyburn's moderate background check bill came up for a vote, 7 Republicans voted for it and just 3 Democrats voted against it, Brindisi, of course, being one of them. How about raising the minimum wage? That should be easy for every Democrat, right? Well, almost every Democrat. Three Republicans voted with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage. Six Blue Dogs who hate the working class-- Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Kurt Schrader (OR), Joe Cunningham (SC), Ben McAdams (UT), Kendra Horn (OK) and, of course Brindisi (NY) voted to kill it. Does this lunkhead think voters-- who backed Bernie in 2019-- in Binghampton, Rome, Utica, Cortland and Oneida don't want better wages? This clown deserves to lose his seats. I asked my friend the congressman if he agrees. His whispered, "yes!" This is the kind of raw sewage in a suit and tie that Cheri Bustos is trying to protect from progressives.





And the Democrats who kiss up to the GOP most-- and most frequently vote for their reactionary positions and policies-- are the ones the NRCC goes after with the most vehemence. This ad above started running over the weekend to destroy freshman Blue Dog Max Rose, even though he-- like his pal Brindisi-- has adamantly and publicly opposed an impeachment inquiry. This is the misleading press statement the NRCC sent out: "Aware of the political damage it will cause, Max Rose is desperate to convince Staten Island voters he hasn’t backed the socialist Democrats baseless impeachment of President Trump."

Iowa Republicans Will Have To Chose Between 2 Right-Wing Nuts, One Obsessed With Homosexuality And One Obsessed With Racism

Republican homophobic maniac Randy Feenstra may stop thinking about sex with men long enough to run against Steve King

Anthony Brindisi was a worthless New York state senator, beloved by the NRA and never shy about abandoning his own party when they tried passing progressive legislation and crossing the aisle to vote with the GOP. Perfect for the DCCC, right? Absolutely. This year he ran in a little-noted race in upstate New York against a pathetic right-wing, Trump-enthused backbencher, Claudia Tenney. It was a pure lesser of two evils race in a district Obama won twice but where Trump beat Hillary 54.8% to 39.3%. NY-22 is a north-south district that stretches from Lake Ontario through Rome, Utica, Oneida and Cortland to Binghampton and the border with northeast Pennsylvania above Scranton. There are 8 counties and Brindisi won 3 of them, including the only two-- Oneida and Broome-- with sizable populations. This is how close it was:

Brindisi spent $4,528,959 and Tenney spent $3,143,743 but those figures were smaller than the outside spending. The DCCC spent $2,191,416, Pelosi's SuperPAC spent $2,503,046 and DCCC satellite groups spent over a million more-- almost $6 million to elect a worthless Blue Dog who will absolutely be voting with the GOP over and over and over.

None of this really has anything at all to do with Iowa neo-Nazi Steve King, the topic. I just wanted to draw a contrast between how DCCC & Friends spent millions on a dirty NRA-loving Blue Dog and was happy to let Steve King off scott free.

Last week I had a great dinner with King's opponent, JD Scholten, who may run for the Iowa 4th district seat again in 2020 or may-- as I hope-- run for the U.S. Senate seat that Joni Ernst is occupying. JD, a first-time candidate and a strong grassroots progressive, raised an astonishing $3,253,487. Although a few grassroots groups like Blue America, People for the American Way, Ultraviolet, and MoveOn spent some money on JD's behalf, Pelosi's PAC and the DCCC adamantly refused to spend a nickel on the race. Had they, JD would be in Congress and King would be living in Hungary or some other friendly fascist-leaning state. That wouldn't serve the interests of the DCCC, where they hate independent-minded progressives like Scholten and prefer conservatives like Brindisi. And in this case, they like using King as a fundraising bogeyman and have no real interest in seeing him leave Congress, let alone America.

JD held King to a meager 50.3% win. Consider that in 2016, King took 61.2% of the vote, in 2014 he took 61.6% and the only time a Democrat did even close to as well as JD did was when the DCCC and Pelosi's SuperPAC spent almost $1 million to push the former governor's wife Christie Vilsack, who held King down to 53.0%.

On Wednesday, Iowa's Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, announced she will not come to King's aid in what promises to be a lively Republican primary for his seat. In 2018 she had chosen him as a co-chair of her reelection bid.

"The last election was a wake-up call for it to be that close," Reynolds said during an interview in her formal office at the Iowa Statehouse, "That indicates that it does open the door for other individuals to take a look at that."

King won re-election in 2018. But despite a nearly 70,000 registered voter advantage that Republicans have over Democrats in the district, King only beat his Democratic challenger, former professional baseball player J.D. Scholten, by three points.

"I will stay out of the primary," the governor said, "I'm not going to weigh in."

The revelation by Reynolds follows critical comments she made about King following the November election when she said, "I think that Steve King needs to make a decision whether he wants to represent the values of the 4th District or he needs to find something else to do."

King has faced criticism in the past for endorsing a white supremacist mayoral candidate in Toronto last year and comments about immigrants.

Tuesday morning, three-term State Senator Randy Feenstra, a Hull Republican, announced that he would run for King's seat in 2020.

"The President needs effective conservative leaders in Congress who will not only support his agenda, but actually get things done,” Feenstra said in a statement. “Today, Iowa’s 4th District doesn’t have a voice in Washington, because our current representative’s caustic nature has left us without a seat at the table. We don’t need any more sideshows or distractions, we need to start winning for Iowa’s families,” the statement also said.

King's son, Jeff, who serves as the Congressman's campaign manager, responded, "Today, misguided political opportunism, fueled by establishment puppeteers, has revealed that Mr. Feenstra is easily swayed by the lies of the Left. Today’s announcement by Feenstra is the third attempt by the establishment in as many primary cycles to take the 4th District out of the hands of grassroots Republicans. Further, it’s an obvious attempt to undermine an effective and leading Congressional ally of the President’s whom Trump frequently refers to as ‘the world’s most conservative human being.’ From his statements, it appears that Mr. Feenstra offers Republican voters nothing but warmed over talking points from liberal blogs and failed Democratic candidates.”

In an interview with the NY Times yesterday, King was embarrassing Iowa again by asking "White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization-- how did that language become offensive?"

By the way, Feenstra, 49, serves as assistant majority leader in the Iowa state Senate. He's a mentally disturbed evangelical who graduated from an evangelical high school and got his bachelor's degree from Dordt College. He isn't an actual Nazi like King but he's a 100% Trumpist and an extreme right radical and hysterical homophobe who seems so hung up on men sleeping with each other (he claims to oppose it) that rumors have been whispered that he sleeps with boys on the down low.

The DCCC Is Hiding NRA-Democrats Jeff Van Drew, Ann Kirkpatrick, Anthony Brindisi And Elaine Luria

I've reported this here before but bear with me a moment; there's a reason I'm repeating it now. The week Andrew Janz declared he was running for Congress and eager to take on Devin Nunes in the Central Valley district (CA-22) that stretches from Clovis and the neighborhoods and suburbs north and east of Fresno through Dinuba and Visalia and down beyond Tulare, he called to ask about a Blue America endorsement. He was a brand new candidate without the consultants who teach new candidates what to say and not say. He has them now. But then he was still speaking from the heart, raw and unfiltered. I asked if I could run him through some of the questions we talk about with candidates. He agreed immediately. And we ran into problems right off the bat. He didn't know what single payer or Medicare for All meant. He grew exasperated and asked if he could just tell me his motivations for running. I said sure. He said the death penalty and the Second Amendment. I was confused and asked him to explain. He said he wanted to see the death penalty more widely used and that Congress needed to protect the Second Amendment. I asked him if he was a Democrat. He laughed and said Democrats in the Central Valley are different from Democrats on the coast.

Janz isn't on the DCCC's Red to Blue list yet but he's clearly being supported by the establishment and the DCCC's stalking horse, the scam known as End Citizens United has endorsed him. His issues page was written by his consultants and it's a garden variety Democratic position page across the board, nothing innovative, no passion... just standard issue D for Democrat; no mention of the death penalty he told me was motivating him to run and his gun position-- while saying nothing about banning the manufacture and sale of automatic weapons-- is also standard DCCC fare for candidates, albeit nothing like what he told me less than a year ago:

I am in a unique position to tackle gun safety issues with credibility in Congress. As a prosecutor, I deal with violent crimes daily, and as a gun owner, I support an individual's right to bear arms. I am committed to enacting universal background checks, and closing gun show and private sale loopholes. Additionally, I believe that no one who commits a violent crime or who is mentally ill should have access to guns. Specifically, I support a measure banning those who are convicted of committing domestic violence from owning a gun. I also strongly support the no-fly no buy list. My opponent Devin Nunes has an A rating from the NRA and has accepted over $20,000 in contributions from them. I will never take a dime from the NRA or any organization that opposes common-sense gun safety legislation that will save lives and end the epidemic of mass shootings in America. 

Many politicians whose views are aligned with the NRA have moved swiftly to distance themselves from the group. Very few Democrats still take bribes from the gun makers and their lobbyists. Only a few hard core gun nuts among the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- 4 to be precise-- still do: like Collin Peterson (MN), Henry Cuellar (TX), Sanford Bishop (GA), and Ron Kind (WI). So far no non-incumbent candidates have taken any money for their congressional races from the NRA. But several have very extreme NRA records, particularly gun-fanatics with clear records they can't run away from, DCCC recruits as bad as any Republican gun nut and day of any week: Anthony Brindisi (NY), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ) and Elaine Luria (VA). The vast majority of DCCC endorsed candidates are either Blue Dogs or New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. There's virtually no chance that Brindisi, Van Drew, Kirkpatrick and Luria are the only NRA Democrats among them; they're just the ones who haven't been able to obscure their records, the way Janz has.

The DCCC recruited Jeff Van Drew to run in an open New Jersey House seat

One of the slimiest of the former DCCC chairmen, Steve Israel, a former Blue Dog who was forced to leave Congress to avoid legal prosecution, penned an OpEd for The Hill on Monday: The 'Teen Party' can change Congress like the Tea Party. The DCCC, incapable of creating its own energy, is desperate to capture and exploit the energy being created by the March for Our Lives activists. There is nothing they want more than to pin the gun deaths on the Republican Party and paper over the fact that they have been RECRUITING, not just endorsing, NRA allies to run for Congress. "[I]ntangible energy in the environment," wrote Israel about elections, "the charge in the air. It makes everything mechanical and methodical almost irrelevant. It’s like an electromagnetic pulse that can render sophisticated technology useless. We saw that energy gather in Saturday’s 'March For Our Lives' in Washington and in 800 sibling marches against gun violence held in 390 of 435 congressional districts, according to organizers at supportive national organizations. And it very well may work at changing the majority in Congress and changing the laws."

Keep in mind, the DCCC adamantly refuses to disassociate itself from the NRA-Democrats or to kick like the likes of Van Drew, Luria, Kirkpatrick or Brindisi off their Red to Blue list. If you contribute to the DCCC-- or to DCCC fronts like End Citizens United-- your money will go to the blood-soaked campaign coffers of gun fanatics, of that you can be certain. Steve Israel is hoping the DCCC can trick the Match for Our Lives activists into being foot-soldiers for their partisan objectives, a DCCC equivalent of the Tea Party.

The energy transmitted almost instantly, echoing and amplifying across kitchen tables, in diners and coffee shops, in workplaces, and at rallies, protests and boisterous congressional town halls. The Tea Party disabled the precise engineering devised by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to protect its House majority. It swept over its canvassers, drowned out its paid advertising, claimed 63 Democratic seats and toppled its majority (aided and abetted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which opened the floodgates of money for Republicans).

Now, we see it again, only in hard reverse. Not a Tea Party, but a Teen Party. Not in the diatribe of pundits, but in 11-year-old Naomi Wadler’s captivation of her audience at a rally on Saturday. In the thousands of voters drawn to rallies by the energy of children too young to vote. In the hand-drawn signs and the spontaneous chants of “vote them out” that I heard at a rally in Huntington, Long Island, that attracted more than 1,000 people. I used to represent that community in Congress, and getting 100 people to show up for a political event was almost impossible.

Something powerful is in the air when a discussion of “midterms” at the kitchen table isn’t about school exams but about elections. Of course, the energy isn’t spent efficiently across the map. In blue districts, it won’t make a difference between a member of Congress who is servile to the gun lobby and one who isn’t. In unwinnable bright red districts, it may depress turnout, but in the absence of a criminal indictment or the incumbent representative being caught in bed with a copy of President Obama’s autobiography, it won’t change the outcome.

But in the 48 or so districts that are competitive, in suburbs and exurbs, that mysterious energy tosses the toss-up districts. If the Teen Party, like the Tea Party, ramps up town hall meetings, channels their energy and masses in districts that matter, vulnerable Republicans will find themselves in a perilous place-- on the wrong side of energy, and maybe of history as well.

If the DCCC is serious about supporting "the Teen Party," they should immediately dump NRA-Dems and vow to not spend another dime trying to elect Kirkpatrick, Brindisi, Van Drew, Luria or any other NRA allies they have endorsed. They should get their resumes ready. This is NOT the position of the Blue Dogs, the New Dems, the DCCC or the Democratic Party:

Politicians-- either represent the people or get out;
The people demand a law banning the sale of assault weapons;
The people people demand we prohibit the sale of high capacity magazines;
The people people demand universal background checks.
Stand for us or beware: the voters are coming