Did Trump Have Any Coattails In Senate Races?

There was a lot of anger among Trump fans that so many of the GOP incumbents either opposed Trump directly-- the way Mark Kirk (R-IL) did-- or refused to overtly, publicly and enthusiastically back him-- think Pat Toomey waiting until 6pm on election day. This weekend, as we read the unlikely story, given Trump's well-known penchant for revenge, about how the transition team is considering defeated New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte for the Secretary of Defense job, we have to remember that shoe refused to endorse him. We his partisans in Belknap and Coos counties-- where he performed best, pissed off enough at Ayotte to cost her the election? The answer is no.

First of all Ayotte did better statewide than the unsuccessful Trump and just about the same vote as the successful Republican gubernatorial candidate, Chris Sununu.

• Sununu- 353,572 (49.0%)
• Ayotte- 353,525 (47.9%)
• Trump- 345,598 (47.3%)

However, in the two counties where Trump did best, he did outperform her, although very slightly-- maybe a Klavern's worth. In Belknap, where Trump took 19,315 votes (56.0%), Ayotte won 18,710 (53.8%). Same story in Coos County, where Trump won 7,951 votes (52.1%) and Ayotte got 7,537 votes (48.7%).

Illinois and Nevada, two states that Trump lost and where the GOP Senate candidates went down the drain with him, were also the two states were the Republican candidates were most explicit in saying that would not vote for Trump. In Illinois Trump did really badly-- 2,118,179 votes (39.4%). Mark Kirk didn't do well either-- but noticeably better than Trump-- 2,150,099 (40.2%). Trump had several pockets of strength though. His half dozen best-performing counties, Trump Country, were all tiny and rural:

• Wayne- 6,963 (84.3%
• Edwards- 2,777 (83.8%)
• Clay- 5,009 (79.8%)
• Pope- 1,678 (78.7%)
• Effingham- 13,613 (78.1%)
• Jasper- 3,973 (77.8%)

Trumpists in these far right bastions were significantly less enthusiastic about Kirk:

• Wayne- 5,612 (70.7%)
• Edwards- 2,321 (68.5%)
• Clay- 3,896 (64.0%)
• Pope- 1,279 (61.9%)
• Effingham- 12,497 (72.5%)
• Jasper- 3,310 (66.9%)

Had he not lost so many Trumpists would he have beaten Duckworth? Nope. In the bigger urban and suburban counties, he did far better than Trump, largely because he distanced himself from the unpopular fascist. In the biggest county in the state, Cook, Kirk won 512,164 votes (25.2%), much better than Trump's 440,213 (21.4%). It was pretty much the same in the next 5 biggest counties in the state, deep red McHenry County being the glaring exception.

• DuPage- Kirk: 190,201 (45.7%), Trump: 164,355 (39.8%)
• Lake- Kirk: 133,592 (45.2%), Trump: 108,608 (37.0%)
• Will- Kirk: 124,101 (42.8%), Trump: 129,726 (44.6%)
• Kane- Kirk: 87,153 (45.2%), Trump: 82.087 (42.4%)
• McHenry- Kirk: 57.923 (41.4%), Trump: 71,117 (52.6%)

Kirk's gamble to eschew Trump and his most rabid, racist fans paid off... just not enough. In Nevada the story was slightly different. Trump took 511,319 votes statewide (45.5%) and the anti-Trump (but not anti-Trump enough?) wishy-washy Heck took 494,427 votes (44.7%).

Trump won all the sparsely populated, rural counties and lost the two biggies, Clark (Vegas) and Washoe (Reno) to Clinton. Trump's two biggest counties were Eureka-- 723 (84.7%)-- Lincoln-- 1,671 (78.4%)-- and Esmeralda-- 329 (77.8%). Who cares when he lost Clark by double digits, 401,068 (52.4%) to 319,571 (41.8%). Catherine Cortez Masto didn't even win Washoe County-- just Clark. Compare Heck and Trump in the 2 biggest counties and in Trump's 3 best-performers, all tiny:

• Clark- Heck: 303,316 (40.4%), Trump: 319,571 (41.8%)
• Washoe- Heck: 97,226 (46.9%), Trump: 94,529 (45.2%)
• Eureka- Heck: 692 (81.5%), Trump: 723 (84.7%)
• Lincoln- Heck: 1,609 (75.9%), Trump: 1,671 (78.4%)
• Esmeralda- Heck: 312 (74.3%), Trump: 329 (77.8%)

Heck's win in Washoe, where's he's from, was significant but Trump voters seemed to have abandoned him consistently enough, not to make a difference in the outcome, but enough to make him question his ever-shifting strategy towards Trump.

Alaska had a unique situation,. The establishment incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, who was distinctly unenthusiastic about Trump, was more concerned with the Trumpist Libertarian candidate, far right-wing lunatic Joe Miller, than she was with a pathetically divided Democratic Party. Trump wasn't especially popular in a state where Romney beat Obama 136,848 (55%) to 102,138 (41%). Trump's victory over Clinton was 130,415 (52.9%) to 93,007 (37.7%). A less disliked Democrat would have come a lot closer to beating him and Bernie probably could have. The Senate race had the two Republicans with over 180,000 votes between them, around 50,000 more than Trump! Murkowski took 111,382 votes (44.3%) and Miller, the full-on Trumpist crackpot, took 74,245 (29.5%).

In Arizona, the antipathy between Trump and McCain was out in the open. McCain did better than Trump-- 1,085,285 (53.4%) to Trump's 1,017,166 (49.5%) In Colorado, the Republicans had nominated a fringe rightist Darryl Glenn it run against an unpopular Democratic incumbent, Michael Bennet. Bennet won but with a narrower margin than expected: 1,242,335 (49.1%) to 1,148,008 (45.4%), beating Trump's 1,136,354 (44.4%) statewide. Bennet also beat Clinton.

Down the road in Utah, Trump was the unloved victor with far fewer votes than the anti-Trump Governor or Senator. Trump only won 397,005 votes (46.6%). Trump-hater Senator Mike Lee took 571,781 votes (68.1%) and Trump-hater Gary Herbert won 564,563 votes (66.9%). For all the Sturm und Drang, Trump was a non-factor in Utah. Clinton beat him in Salt Lake County, 126,702 (44.9%) to 91,373 (32.4%). Again, his best-performing counties were all rural and numerically inconsequential. Compare his performance to Mike Lee's in Trump's 3 best counties:

• Piute- Trump: 537 (87.0%), Lee: 549 (91.2%)
• Emery- Trump: 3,402 (79.8%), Lee: 3.630 (86.0%)
• Duchesne- Trump: 5,505 (79.4%), Lee: 6,044 (87.8%)

I'll note in passing that the most outspoken Trump Senate candidate anywhere former KKK Grand Dragon or Wizard, David Duke, came in 7th in Louisiana, with just 58,581 votes. Trump, who won the state with 1,178,004 votes (58.1%), didn't do him much good. There were no bright spots for Duke anywhere in the state. Trump's half dozen best-performing parishes were La Salle (88.8%), Cameron (88.2%), Livingston (84.6%), Grant (84.0%), West Carroll (83.4%) Caldwell (81.5%) and the only ones of them where Duke climbed above his miserable statewide average were La Salle (8.1%) and Caldwell (7.9%). Duke's best-performing parish, the racist hellhole Avoyelles (median household income-- $23,851) was kind of average for Trump-- 11,163 votes (67.3%)-- while Duke came in 5th with 1,354 (8.9%). Trump wasn't much of a factor in the state.

But he sure was in Florida. Rubio-- who had, in Patrick Murphy, the weakest Democratic opponent of any major state-- very publicly held his nose and endorsed Trump, who he promised to fight when he steps out of line. Rubio out-performed Trump statewide-- 4,822,182 (52.0%) to 4,605,515 (49.1%). His native Miami-Dade was an important consideration for Rubio, of course. Trump fans in the really backwards little rural districts where Trump had his biggest wins were relatively unethusiastic about Rubio, but the voters in the big counties where are the voters are were more interested in electing Rubio than Trump. First the half dozen most Florida counties with the most voters:

•Miami-Dade- Trump: 333,666 (34.1%), Rubio: 419,623 (43.3%)
• Broward- Trump: 258,521 (31.4%), Rubio: 275,930 (34.1%)
• Palm Beach- Trump: 270,762 (41.2%), Rubio: 286,027 (44.2%)
• Hillsborough- Trump: 265,928 (44.7%), Rubio: 282,749 (48.1%)
• Orange- Trump: 195,091 (35.7%), Rubio: 224,710 (41.7%)
• Pinellas- Trump: 238,746 (48.6%), Rubio: 236,170 (48.8%)

In these 6 most crucial counties in the state, Rubio won 162,525 more votes than Trump. He beat Trump in every one of them except Pinellas and Rubio actually had a bigger portion of the vote in his contest there than Trump did. In the 6 most blue counties Rubio netted 1,725,239 votes, over 162,000 more than Trump's 1,562,714. It's the main reason Rubio did so much better than Trump statewide despite some Trump fanatics refusing to vote for Rubio. And these are the 6 most Trumpoid counties:

• Holmes- Trump: 7,476 (87.9%), Rubio: 7,032 (83.7%)
• Lafayette- Trump: 2,795 (82.8%), Rubio: 2,559 (76.5%)
• Baker- Trump: 10,294 (81.5%), Rubio: 9,901 (79.5%)
• Dixie- Trump: 5,822 (80.8%), Rubio: 5,040 (72.2%)
• Union- Trump: 4,567 (80.2%), Rubio: 4,312 (77.4%)
• Gilchrist- Trump: 6,740 (80.1%), Rubio: 6,301 (75.7%)

So in the 6 most redneck, backward counties in the state, 2,549 Trump fanatics skipped voting for Rubio. It sure didn't make any difference as Rubio crushed Murphy by over 700,000 votes, a lot more convincingly than Trump bested Clinton.

Ohio and Pennsylvania are two states were the GOP incumbents did't endorse Trump. Rob Portman (OH) said he wouldn't vote for him and Toomey played coy. Trump fans had no discernible impact. In fact, in Ohio, Portman out-polled Trump 3,048,467 to 2,771,984-- a 276,483 margin! In Pennsylvania, Toomey had a slightly larger portion of the vote in his race (48.9%) than Trump did in his (48.8%), although statewide Trump had 2,912,941 votes to Toomey's 2,893,833-- a minute margin of 19,108 Trump voters who didn't cast ballots for Toomey.

In Missouri, North Carolina and Wisconsin, the Republican incumbents all backed Trump. With the possible exception of Blunt (MO), he didn't do any of them much good though. Trump kicked ass in Missouri-- 1,585,753 votes (57.1%) while Blunt scraped by with just 1,370,240 votes (49.4%), so Trump might have been helpful. But in North Carolina, Burr got more votes than Trump-- 2,371,192 (51.1%) to 2,339,603 (50.5%). And it was the same thing in Wisconsin, where Ron Johnson got 1,479,262 votes (50.2%) and Trump barely won with 1,409,467 votes (47.9%).

As for Republican incumbents who lost their seats in the House, in Florida John Mica (FL) had endorsed Trump, while David Jolly and Carlos Curbelo had opposed him. Frank Guinta was a Trump supporter and he was defeated badly. Robert Dold (IL) and Cresent Hardy (NV) had opposed Trump, while Scott Garrett (NJ) played coy. Several Republican incumbents in tight races who either opposed Trump or refused to endorse him won, including Barbara Comstock (VA), William Hurd (TX), John Katko (NY), Erik Paulsen (MN), Bruce Poliquin (ME), David Blum (IA), Mike Bost (IL), Mike Coffman (CO), Scott Tipton (CO), Steve Knight (CA) and Dave Valadao (CA). Darrell Issa (CA), a big Trump supporter, is in a race that is still too close to call. Backing or opposing Trump doesn't seem to have been decisive in any races.

New Hampshire Is Crucial In The Battle For The White House, The Senate And The House Of Representatives

New Hampshire is, in a partisan sense, one of those 50-50 states. It swings, sometimes madly, between Democrats and Republicans. Bill Clinton started a presidential winning streak in 1992-- interrupted for one election, in 2000, in favor of George W. Bush who beat Gore by a mere 7,211 votes (which gave America Bush-Cheney). Right now the state has a Democratic governor and a state legislature controlled by the GOP. There are 238 Republicans and 160 Democrats in the state House and 14 Republicans and 10 Dems in the state Senate. There's one U.S. senator from each party and one member of the House from each party. Very swingy state.

The Real Clear Politics polling average gives Clinton a comfortable 5.7 point lead. And the most recent poll (by WBUR, after 80% of respondents reported having watched the debate, has Hillary leading Trump by an even wider margin-- 47-38% in a head-to-head, 42-35% with third party candidates included. There is also a Senate race between GOP incumbent Kelly Ayotte and current Governor Maggie Hassan and it's too close to call. The two House races both look reasonably close as well, although incumbent conservative Democrat Anne Kuster leads state Rep. Jack Flanagan 38-32% and progressive Democratic challenger Carol Shea-Porter tops incumbent far right Tea Party loon Frank Guinta 43-37%.

Blue America has looked at all the candidates running and the only one we're enthusiastic about is Carol Shea-Porter, who we've endorsed. (You can contribute to her campaign here.)

The Trump campaign has lately come to see New Hampshire as an absolute must-win state if they're going to prevail in November. If Democrats don't vote, Trump could win. Otherwise, that's unlikely. In the primary, Bernie swept the state, winning 60.4% of the vote (151,584) to Hillary's 38% (95,252). More Republicans voted in the primaries than Democrats but Trump's win wasn't all that convincing-- only 35.3% of the vote, with double-digit results for Kasich, Cruz, Jeb and Rubio.New Hampshire was Christie's graveyard). Yesterday, David Shriblman wrote that Trump's efforts in the state are being hampered by a Republican Party in turmoil.

The two leading statewide Republican candidates-- Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who is seeking a second term, and gubernatorial candidate Chris Sununu, the son of a former governor, the brother of a former senator and a member of the state’s Executive Council-- represent a return to a Granite State Republicanism personified by former Sens. Judd Gregg and the late Warren B. Rudman: ideological, to be sure, but not doctrinaire.

The Trump candidacy has warped the calculus of New Hampshire politics this fall.

Ms. Ayotte, who has made a solid reputation on Capitol Hill for her work on national security, is facing a strong challenge from the Democratic governor, Maggie Hassan. Ms. Ayotte and Mr. Trump are not soul-siblings; in a summertime Washington Post interview, the real-estate-and-casino tycoon singled her out, saying, “We don’t need weak people. We have enough of them. We need fighters in this country. But Kelly Ayotte has given me zero support and I’m doing great in New Hampshire.”

Since then, in a contorted political move that might win her advantage in a game of Twister but has only confused things here, the senator said she will vote for Mr. Trump but that she has not endorsed him. The state’s lone Republican House member, Rep. Frank Guinta, is fully behind Mr. Trump and, despite federal charges he accepted illegal contributions-- and a New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper editorial describing him as a “damned liar”-- Mr. Guinta prevailed in last month’s primary, largely on the strength of Trump supporters.

Party insiders say Ms. Ayotte’s support in the state exceeds that of Mr. Trump and likely will stay that way; she provides a safe harbor for Republicans who want to show their party loyalty by voting for her even as they vote for Ms. Clinton, the Libertarians’ Mr. Johnson or no one at all for president. “The idea of voting against her because of the Trump factor doesn’t hold,” said former state attorney general Thomas D. Rath, “People here realize they can split their vote.”

Ms. Ayotte and her rival are playing a game of political guilt-by-association. Ms. Hassan has tried to tie Ms. Ayotte to Mr. Trump. Ms. Ayotte has returned the volley by questioning why the governor continues to support a presidential nominee who was soundly defeated by Sen. Bernie Sanders of neighboring Vermont in the state’s primary. Meanwhile, the Union Leader, the statewide newspaper and a generations-long sentinel of Granite State conservatism, has endorsed Mr. Johnson, the former GOP governor of New Mexico.

“Now I can sleep at night,” Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher of the newspaper, said in an interview.

Last winter, Mr. McQuaid wrote that Mr. Trump’s campaign was “an insult to the intelligence of Republican voters.” The other day he said he didn’t know whom his endorsement helps. “Those two,” he said, ”are the worst candidates the parties have put up in a long time.”

A Quick Senate Scorecard

Chuck Schumer, your next Democratic Senate Minority Leader (source)

by Gaius Publius

I want to offer a quick Senate scorecard for the upcoming election, not just races to watch and their current status, but the effect of the races on the "final score" — control of the Senate until the wipeout in 2018 puts the Republicans firmly in control.

To do this, I want to organize the races the way basketball or football analysts look at your favorite college team's upcoming season — games grouped by Should Be Easy, Tough Call, On the Bubble, Would Take a Miracle. For this exercise, we'll ignore the baked-in results in places like California (Democratic and will stay that way), and list the races to watch by these categories:

• Washouts — four contests (IL, WI, OH, FL)
• No Change — one contest (CO)
• Possible Flips — three contests (NH, PA, IN)
• Toss Ups — three contests (NV, NC, MO)
• and one Wild Card race — Alaska

We will look briefly at these 12 races. Others may disagree, but it looks to me like these are the ones to watch.

For reference, the state of the Senate today is:

• Republicans: 54 seats
• Democrats: 44 seats
• Independents: 2 seats (caucus with Democrats)

No independent is up for reelection this cycle. Democrats need a net pickup of +4 to tie in the Senate (50-50) and +5 to take it outright (ignoring for now the "60 vote rule" that makes sure no progressive legislation gets passed). Here are races in each group, with the likeliest outcomes by group in parentheses.

Washouts (+2 D)

The "washout" states are those where one party has conceded the race by withdrawing money. All four seats are held by Republicans. Two of the Democrats have washed out, as have two of the Republicans. These are:

Illinois, currently Republican
Winner should be Tammy Duckworth (D)

Wisconsin, currently Republican
Winner should be Russ Feingold (D)

Ohio, currently Republican
Winner should be Rob Portman (R)

Florida, currently Republican
Winner should be Marco Rubio (R)

Net result: +2 Democrats.

From Electoral-Vote.com:

Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy in Florida, incumbent Republican Mark Kirk in Illinois, Democratic challenger Ted Strickland in Ohio, and incumbent Republican Ron Johnson in Wisconsin are doing badly enough that their parties either have already cut off the money (the two Republicans), or are close to doing so (the two Democrats).

I think most would call these races closed. (Note: Chuck Schumer actively interfered with progressive challengers in Florida and Ohio. The +2 Democrats could easily be +4 Democrats in this category, absent that interference.)

No Change

This category could be larger (I had the New Hampshire race here at first), but let's play it safe.

Colorado, currently Democratic
Winner should be Michael Bennet (D)

The Hill on Bennet:

Once viewed as one of the only ripe opportunities for Republicans, Bennet appears poised to sail to reelection. Republicans aren’t coming to the aid of Darryl Glenn, a county commissioner who trumpeted his conservative bona fides during the primary. But he’ll need to look beyond his base in a state that Obama carried twice and also has a large Latino population.

Michael Bennet is this guy, by the way, from 2014: "Shorter Republicans: "We forgive Michael Bennet for trying to win the Senate." Shorter Sen. Bennet: "Glad we're still friends.""

Possible Flips (+2 D, Maybe)

These are fairly close races where the Democrat could flip a Republican seat. I have three of these:

New Hampshire, currently Republican
Leader is Kelly Ayotte (R)

Pennsylvania, currently Republican
Leader is McGinty (D)

Indiana, was Republican, now open
Leader is Bayh (D)

If the current leader wins each seat: +2 Democrats, but this is iffy.

In New Hampshire, Ayotte is surging at the moment (+8 in the latest Marist poll), but she's coming from behind. Hassan could take it, but I'm not confident.

The Hill on the Pennsylvania race:

The presidential race appears to be trickling into Toomey’s reelection. Political observers in the state say he’s running a strong campaign, but his dip in the polls is largely thanks to the top of the ticket.

Toomey continues to withhold his support from Trump. But his opponent, Katie McGinty, a little-known former gubernatorial chief of staff, has been helped by Clinton’s consistent lead over Trump in the Keystone State. McGinty has maintained a lead since mid-July, though one survey has Toomey up 7 points.

RealClearPolitics has this race a wash, but I think Toomey has the edge. In Indiana, Bayh is only up by single digits, but has never trailed.

(Note: Chuck Schumer actively interfered with non-Democratic establishment Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary, who might easily have beaten Toomey. If Schumer-chosen candidate McGinty fails to win, it will be because of Schumer.)

Too Close To Call (A Wash)

There are three races here — Nevada, North Carolina, Missouri — and Republicans are defending two of the three seats. (Nevada is an open seat, but was Democratic.)

Nevada, was Democratic, now open
Joe Heck (R) has a slight lead over Catherine Cortez Masto (D)

North Carolina, currently Republican
Richard Burr (R) has a low single-digit lead over Deborah Ross (D)

Missouri, currently Republican
Roy Blunt leads Jason Kander (D), but not by much

Republicans flip one seat if all three leaders win. Most likely positive case for the Democrats is no change (two wins and one loss). If Democrats win out: +2 Democrats.

Subtotal (+2 D or +4 D)

If you're counting the total to this point, Democrats are up +2 among the Washout races, then it's a wash until the Too Close To Call races, where there's either no change (more likely) or they go up +2 (by winning them all).

In other words, our best case gives the Democrats +4 seats, and our middle case gives them +2 seats. That's not enough to take the Senate.

(Note again, that Schumer's interference in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania have reduced these totals. Instead of "+2 Democrats or +4 Democrats" so far, the call would have been " +4 or +6" — putting full control of the Senate within reach.)

Wild Card Race: Alaska

Alaska is a Republican seat at the moment, with Lisa Murkowski defending it. A pro-Sanders Democrat is in position to win the seat — and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants him to lose (!).

Howie has written about the Alaska race here:

[T]he populist Democratic Party in the state-- which gave Bernie a 81.6% to 18.4% landslide over Hillary and massive victories in every single electoral district (numbers that beat Trump too)-- also nominated Ray Metcalfe, a former Anchorage state Rep who was one of the state's original Bernie for President organizers. Although he won the party nomination, 15,198 to 10,074, Metcalfe is not a Schumer kind of candidate....

The DSCC (and Alaska's grotesquely corrupt Democratic Party establishment) are worried that-- with teabagger and Trumpist Joe Miller in the race as a Libertarian and tearing Murkowski apart from the right-- Metcalfe could actually win. ... That's how Schumer's reptilian mind works. So he's encouraging a proven corruptionist buddy of his, Mark Begich, to mount a last minute write-in campaign to draw votes away from Metcalfe and throw the election to Murkowski!

More from Electoral-vote.com (my emphasis)

Alaska looks like it's going to become a free-for-all. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is running for reelection, trying to keep a seat that she last won as a write-in candidate after being primaried by tea partier Joe Miller. She could end up facing four viable opponents: Ray Metcalfe (the Democratic nominee), Margaret Stock (an independent with a very impressive resume), Miller (who's back, as the recently-chosen nominee of the Libertarian Party), and possibly former Democratic senator Mark Begich (who may run—wait for it—as a write-in candidate). 30% of the vote could very well win this thing.

Schumer has succeeded in sabotaging every race he has tried to sabotage, so I'll give Murkowski and Schumer the win.

Alaska, currently Republican
Lisa Murkowski (R) has the edge in a five-person race

Net change (if Schumer succeeds): None.

Your Most Likely 2017 Senate

The most likely 2017 Senate, the high point of the bell-shaped curve, if all current likelihoods hold, appears to be this:

• Republican: 52 or 50 seats
• Democrats: 46 or 48 seats
• Independents: 2 seats (caucus with Democrats)

By sabotaging the Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and possibly Alaska races, Schumer (a) may well have handed Republicans control of the Senate, but (b) will have assured his own personal, hand-picked control of the Democratic minority that remains. In Schumer's world, that must count has a win-win. I can't imagine any other motivation for this ... what, debacle? betrayal?

Anyway, here's a scorecard to follow as these races evolve. For the Democrats to reach 50 seats, watch the Too Close To Call races, plus Alaska.

GP

When Their Careers Are On The Line, Conservatives Vote With Progressives On The Environment

It's always funny-- or sad, depending on your perspective-- to see how conservatives back away from their principles eagerness to serve their corporate masters when their careers are in jeopardy. The Florida Senate race, for example, has Partrick Murphy suddenly calling himself a "champion of the middle class" and an "environmentalist," while his record paints an entirely different picture. He's even tending to vote more frequently with Democrats in Congress than he ever has before. His lifetime ProgressivePunch crucial vote score (50.95) has shot up because this year his score is, miraculously, 62.07, still graded an "F," but not as terrible as usual. He's now just the 11th worst Democrat in the House instead of the 4th worst. Primaries can be refreshing, although no guarantee-- to put it mildly-- that he won't revert back to his anti-working family/anti-environmental ways if he wins the Democratic nomination. (Murphy's political calculus yesterday, though, was to revert to his real nature and vote with the Republicans and the Republican wing of the Democratic Party against the fleeing Syrian immigrants. That's Murphy!) Remember, this "environmentalist," not only voted for drilling off the Florida beaches, but also voted 6 times to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, including going along with the Republicans to remove President Obama from the decision-making process, something not even the only worse Democrat in the state, Blue Dog Gwen Graham, could force herself to do. You can support Alan Grayson's grassroots campaign to bring actual progressive values to that Florida Senate seat Murphy is trying for here.

And speaking of slimy politicians like Murphy who change their stripes on the environment before hotly contested elections, the Natural Resources Defense Council's Action Fund brought to our attention that the tight-wing anti-environment extremists' latest effort to debilitate the effectiveness of the EPA to protect ordinary families from the greed of predatory corporations was hampered by electoral considerations back home. Although the 3 worst right-wing Democrats in the Senate-- Joe Manchin (WV), Joe Donnelly (IN) and Heidi Heitkamp (ND) joined their Republican allies to vote for S.J, Res. 23, 3 Republicans abandoned the GOP effort-- Mark Kirk (IL), Kelly Ayotte (NH) and Susan Collins (ME). Kirk and Kelly are both seriously vulnerable in their reelection bids next year and have tended to try to vote more frequently with the Democrats and they voted to keep recently published EPA rules limiting carbon pollution intact. Kirk, widely considered the most vulnerable Republican up next year, came as more of a surprise than Ayotte.

Ayotte announced her intention to support the Clean Power Plan last month, saying she made the decision to "address climate change through clean energy solutions that will protect our environment," but green groups including NRDC were unsure how Kirk would vote up until the moment he gave a "thumbs down" gesture on the floor of the Senate tonight.

With polling showing strong support among the American electorate (and GOP primary voters) for both the Clean Power Plan specifically and, more generally, concrete political solutions to addressing climate change, it’s no surprise that vulnerable Republicans are siding with a majority of voters. Running on clean energy solutions to climate change has become smart politics.

• Strong majorities say, "it’s important to them that GOP candidates have a clean energy plan." (72% in NH, 68% in SC).
• Nearly three quarters of GOP primary voters want increased use of renewable energies like wind and solar, while primary voters in both states want decreased use of coal.
• Majorities in both states believe in climate change.
• Three quarters of GOP primary voters in both NH and SC support their state submitting a plan to comply with the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

Neither Lindsey Graham, considering the results in his home state, nor serial slacker Marco Rubio bothered to show up for the vote Tuesday. Graham may have been hiding from South Carolina voters and running around TV stations with fellow warmonger John McCain screeching about attacking Syria, but Rubio was sucking up to some of the right-wing billionaires who are financing his uninspired presidential bid. This morning's new NBC poll, shows Cruz's more rabid dog approach resonates better than Rubio's messaging with Republican primary voters. One Democratic senator on the subcommittee Rubio supposedly chairs that deals with Global Warming told us that "we're better off when he doesn't show up. All he ever does is vote the way his Big Money campaign donors want him to vote-- and that's never good for the environment."

Crackpot Utopia: The Year in Republican Crazy, Part 11

• GOP and FOX whip up the hate over a POW exchange
• Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 14: Iowa asylum escapee Rep. Steve King




It's the Old Crackpot Switcheroo! Nebraska Crackpot Rep. Lee Terry was merely one of a flock of Crackpot Cuckoobirds who were all gung-ho for the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. . . until it happened and The Word came down from Crackpot Central -- and all hell broke loose.

Crackpot Utopia: A dream world as envisioned by republicans; a manifestation or expression of the deranged, warped alternate universe inhabited by republicans, at least in their minds. See also: Bachmannism, Boehneresque.

by Noah

1. Once more into the idiocy: GOP and FOX whip up the hate over a POW exchange

The exchange of five Taliban prisoners of war for one U.S. prisoner of war, Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, provides a fine example of the irrationality and instability of the republican mind in 2014. Just as the republicans loved what is now called Obamacare when it was just a gleam in the eyes of the Heritage Society or when it was called Romneycare only to psychopathically turn on it in a screaming rage when President Obama embraced it, the exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl gave us yet another look at Crackpot Utopia.

You see, before President Obama orchestrated the return of our soldier, the Crackpot Party was screaming that the preseident had done nothing to free him, that this was just more evidence of everything from "Obama's incompetence" to him supporting "his fellow Muslims." Here's former Republican presidential candidate John McCain back on February 18 discussing the then-potential deal that had been in the works for over two years with CNN's Anderson Cooper:

Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core. . . . Now this is idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man.

When asked, by Cooper if he was saying that he would support the deal, McCain replied:

I would support. Obviously I'd have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.

Ah, but when the deal went down! McCain did a 180, and did it also on Anderson Cooper's show:

The problem that I have, and many others have, is what we paid for that release, and that is, releasing five of the most hardened, anti-American killers, brutal killers. . . .

Yeah, "brutal killers" as opposed to, you know, the other kind of killers, the kind that, even in times of war, prefer to kill in a kinder, gentler way.

Then there was Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe.



First Inhofe said on his website:

The mission to bring our missing soldiers home is one that will never end. It is important that we make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family.

Only once the trade was made, Inhofe criticized the Obama administration for agreeing to free "people who have killed Americans," never mind that when wars end, that's often what both sides do. There's a thing called the Geneva Conventions that our country signed on to decades ago, after all.

Lesser lights of the Crackpot Party (if one can say that lesser-than-Inhoff is possible) made a similar switcheroo, such as New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte. First: "Bring him home, bring him home, why aren't you doing whatever is needed to bring him home? Sure, swap some prisoners, just bring him home." Then after the release: "Why did you do that?" Of course, President Obama had been working on the deal for quite some time, but why should we expect a mind like Ayotte's to understand?

Other members of the Crackpot Party initially praised and cheered Sergeant Bergdahl's release on their Twitter accounts, only to delete their tweets from their accounts and websites once they had received the memo from the higher-ups in their deranged party. We saw the deleted tweet from Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry at the top of this post. Here are a couple of other effusions that were jettisoned from history:

Nevada Rep. Mark Amodel

Then GOP primary candidate, now Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst


Republicans didn't stop with just condemning the release deal and smearing President Obama over it. No, that wasn't enough for the crazies. They had to smear our soldier too, raising the question of whether he was, in fact, a deserter. They did it in such a way that it was no longer a question but a fact, and therefore he should not have been brought back to us.

Perhaps they should go to the Pentagon and take it up with the military service chiefs, starting with Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was involved in the deal:

"I balanced the risk of transferring the detainees with the importance of returning a U.S. soldier from captivity. I concluded the risk posed by the detainees' future activity would be less grave than breaking faith with our forces in combat.

The other services chiefs weren't involved in the deal, but afterward Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said that release of one of our POWs "regardless of the circumstances is both a moral imperative and vital to keeping faith within our Army," and the Joint Chiefs' vice chairman, the Navy's Adm. James Winnefeld, said, "While the five detainees are indeed hard-core Taliban, they never posed a threat to the United States homeland or our interests in Afghanistan." The media, both Crackpot and so-called-liberal, tended to ignore the opinions coming from the Pentagon. I guess those opinions didn't make for good television, even if they would have made for better journalism.

Of course outlets like the insipid Daily Caller and FOX "News" dug down the lowest.

"Reasoning" like the nine-year-old child he is, Bill O'Reilly fell back on good old bigotry: "Robert Bergdahl, the father, he has learned to speak Pashto, the language of the Taliban, and looks like a Muslim." Right, Bill-O! Just like all those who speak Italian are mobsters and all those who speak German are Nazis.

Next there was fellow FOX buffoon Brian Kilmeade, whose syntax took a beating as he waxed eloquent about the real issue, the beard that Bergdahl's dad had grown while his son was in captivity:

He says he was growing his beard because his son was in captivity. Well, your son's out now. So, if you really don't want to no longer look like a member of the Taliban, you don't have to look like a member of the Taliban. Are you out of razors?

Hmmm, interesting that the FOX brigade doesn't say the same thing about frequent contributor Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty. Damn, he sure looks like a Muslim to me! As did a lot of the 2013 World Champion Boston Red Sox. Back in the 1950s, where republicans would prefer to be, having a beard meant to them that you must be a commie. Now it means you must be a Muslim. Crackpots, it seems, are still in the grip of beardophobia.

The bottom line in the POW exchange is that, whether our military personnel have deserted or been captured, we go get them. If they've done something wrong, they get punished, by us, in a court system that our people have fought and died for, not in someone else's system. If they did something great, they may get a medal, from us. The key thing is, we decide. Our military investigators and our military courts decide. To think otherwise and let an enemy decide what happens to our POWs is to put all our military personnel at risk, not to mention manifesting a lack of belief in the American way of handling a situation.

The debate, if you want to call it that, about the retrieval of Sergeant Bergdahl was not just about taking a good thing and using it for the lowest smear politics imaginable; it was also about the lack of belief in a policy that our country has had since day one, a policy that was set forth by Gen. George Washington -- I'm sorry, republicans, if that isn't good enough. You sure like to yap about the Founding Fathers, but as usual it's just crackpot yapping.

One last thought on this: President Obama got one of our soldiers back for a mere five prisoners from Gitmo. So-called President Bush released 500 detainees from the same prison. What did he get in return, and why was the clueless chorus of crackpots so silent then?


2. Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 14: Iowa asylum escapee Rep. Steve King


Most every time Steve King opens his mouth it seems like he's fishing for a Crazyspeak Award nomination.

Iowa's own Rep. Steve King is no relation to the famous author of horror novels. He's more like the heinous, destructive characters that populate Stephen King's books. Just look at the guy and tell me you wouldn't cross the street to avoid coming into close contact unless you could taser him and put him back in his straitjacket.

Here is Steve King's 2014 Crazyspeak qualifying quote:

"I don't expect to meet gay people in heaven."

Right you are, Steve baby! You see, they don't expect to see you in heaven either, except to see you turned away at the gate, followed by a swift kick down to the pits of burning, flaming hell. Thanks, though, for providing even more proof that you'll never belong in heaven. Hell should suit you just fine, though. Say, why not leave today?

King also decrees that divorced folks and even cohabiters will be excluded from heaven. Don't you just love it how republicans always go around speaking for God? I mean, poor recently deceased Mickey Rooney, who musta been divorced about seven times, maybe eight.

And what about me? What about my posthumous fate? My wife and I cohabited for something like nine years before we eventually got married. Does this mean, in Crackpot Utopia, that we must spend nine years in hell before gaining entrance into the republican concept of the ultimate gated community? Is there some sort of reverse-time-served deal, or does that nine years condemn us to hell for eternity? Oh well, at least I'll be with my wife. That'll make up for having the fetid likes of you as a neighbor, oh pious and holier-than-thou Mr. King. But please, draw your curtains when you have some drag-queen Michele Bachmann come over to flog your bare ass while her hubby watches with some local priest.

TOMORROW IN PART 12: Arizona Republican protests busload of YMCA campers; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee(s) No. 15: the Impeachment Variations (group nominee); Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 16: NM Rep. Steve Pearce

NOAH'S 2014 IN REVIEW --
Crackpot Utopia: The Year in Republican Crazy

Part 1: Princess Liz Cheney tries for the Smoothie of the Year Award; "Miss Beck regrets" -- Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 1: Glenn Beck; and the Crackpot Party reacts to President Obama’s State of the Union speech [12/19/2014]
Part 2: Republicans wonder why normal people call them racists; Sean Hannity wants to self-deport; and the First Annual Mr. Burns Award, to ABC "shark" Kevin O'Leary [12/20/2014]
Part 3: Using fear, loathing, and paranoia to sell stuff; Arizona legalizes crack!; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 3: Bill O’Reilly [12/21/2014]
Part 4: A celebration of Michele Bachmann: Pray away the crazy?; What "War on Women"?; and the "Obama angle" on Malaysian Flight 370 [12/22/2014]
Part 5: The GOP and the kiss heard 'round the world; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 5: Joe the Plumber [12/23/2014]
Part 6: A word about South Carolina; Pat Robertson and his magic asteroid; and I'll have a pack of Twizzlers and an IUD to go, please [12/24/2014]
Part 7: And so it begins: The running of the buffoons; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 7, George Will has no idea what rape is; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 8, Rick Wiles calls for a coup [12/29/2014]
Part 8: Things to come: Forward into the past! (11 Presidential Dream Tickets); Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 9: Former republican VP nominee Paul "Crazy Eyes" Ryan; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 10: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association [12/30/2014]
Part 9: Pompous Blowhard of the Year Award: Bill O’Reilly; FOX "News" announces new spinoff: the "FOX Benghazi™" Shopping Channel!; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 11: DiGiorno Pizza [12/31/2014]
Part 10: Newsmax -- Beyond Drudgery; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominees Nos. 12 and 13: Michele Bachmann, Kimberly Guilfoyle [1/1/2015]
Part 11: GOP and FOX whip up the hate over a POW exchange; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 14: Iowa asylum escapee Rep. Steve King [1/3/2015]
Part 12: Arizona Republican protests busload of YMCA campers; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee(s) No. 15: the Impeachment Variations (group nomination); Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 16: NM Rep. Steve Pearce [1/4/2015]
Part 13 (and last): TV for Dummies: Sarah Palin launches her own channel; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 17: Arizona schools superintendent John Huppenthal (rhymes with Neanderthal); and the final Crazyspeak of the Year nominee -- and also the winner! [1/5/2015]

NOAH'S 2013 IN REVIEW --
A Prayer to the Janitor of Lunacy

For listings and links, see Part 1 of this year's series.

#

Upgrade The U.S. Senate-- Carol Shea-Porter

Very clear choice for 2016- Ayotte vs Shea-Porter

New Hampshire has two congressional districts-- a red-leaning one (NH-01 with a PVI of R+1) and a blue-leaning one (NH-02, with a PVI of D+3). Obama won both districts in 2008 and 2012:

• 2008

• NH-01- Obama- 186,561 (53%)- McCain- 163,941 (46%)
• NH-02- Obama- 198,261 (56%)- McCain- 152,591 (43%)

• 2012

• NH-01- Obama- 179,148 (50%)- Romney- 173,419 (48%)
• NH-02- Obama- 190,413 (54%)- Romney- 156,499 (44%)

It's been somewhat ironic that the stalwart progressive and advocate for New Hampshire's working families and middle class, Carol Shea-Porter represents the red-leaning 1st, while centrist New Dem Ann Kuster, a Wall Street pawn, represents the much bluer 2nd district. And last month, with the GOP pouring massive amounts of money into the state, Senator Jeanne Shaheen lost NH-01 and beat Scott Brown in NH-02, giving her a 250,722 (51.6%)- 234,846 (48.4%) victory statewide. The tragedy in the state was that while the conservative in the blue district (Kuster) was reelected, the progressive in the red district (Shea-Porter) was defeated, very narrowly, by former Congressman Frank Guinta 51.8% to 48.2%. Kuster, like the rest of the shills from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party was one of the minority of Democrats to break ranks and vote for Boehner's CRomnibus, which included a dangerous Wall Street deregulation Republicans and New Dems have been pushing for on behalf of their corporate donors. Shea-Porter, despite representing far more difficult political terrain, voted against the CRomnibus, calling it "a win for special interests, and a bad deal for middle class taxpayers." This is what Shea-Porter told her constituents the day after the vote:

Of course Congress had to keep the government open, but it should have been done by passing a Continuing Resolution that funded the government, but didn’t contain these harmful provisions. I strongly opposed the CROmnibus bill, which would hurt working Americans by allowing big-money bailouts for banks and rolling back already-inadequate campaign finance laws.

In 2008, I voted against the bank bailouts and for policies that saved us from a depression.  I am deeply concerned that this bill calls for a taxpayer-funded bailout for irresponsible institutions if they get themselves in trouble again. The bailout provision is just one of a number of special-interest victories in this bill. Another would raise campaign contribution limits, giving a small number of wealthy individuals even more leverage to drown out our middle class voices. Putting American taxpayers on the hook and gutting campaign finance laws is unacceptable, so I voted no.

For the Democrats to take back the Senate in 2016, the seat held by Kelly Ayotte is universally considered essential. The DSCC has been trying to recruit centrist Governor Maggie Hassan, who isn't jumping at the chance so far but is widely expected to agree to do it. If she doesn't, though, Beltway Democrats are eyeing Kuster. Grassroots Democrats in New Hampshire may have an entirely different idea-- someone who represents their values and their interests: Carol Shea-Porter, who, unlike Kuster, has been able to win elections in red-leaning areas. 2016 is likely to be a very good year for Democrats in New Hampshire, especially if Hillary Clinton is at the top of the ticket. The most recent poll for Bloomberg shows Hillary beating every Republican contender in New Hampshire. She beats Jeb Bush 47-39%.

WMUR political analyst Jim Pindell explains why the Beltway Democrats who want to recruit Kuster have it all wrong and why they should be putting their efforts behind Shea-Porter:

Since 2006, New Hampshire has been the most swing of swing states in the entire country. Nearly every two years since then there has been a violent move from Democrat to Republican. This should have taught us a lesson by now about how New Hampshire politics works lately: What matters most is if a candidate can win a primary, the general election atmosphere cannot be controlled.

There is no better example of this concept that Shea-Porter’s three repeat contests with Republican Frank Guinta. The reason voters had the same choices three different times is because neither of these candidates could be defeated in a primary and then they won or lost against each other depending on the political mood of the year.

This is what makes Shea-Porter really interesting as a U.S. Senate candidate in 2016. Should she ever consider it, she definitely has more of a path to victory than Kuster and maybe even Hassan.

Shea-Porter might be the most prominent true progressive ever elected to major office in New Hampshire in a century. She owns the label. She was running for office talking about the “99 percent” five years before it became the rallying cry for Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Her liberal positions matter because in a typical low-turnout Democratic primary for the Senate in 2016 a well-run liberal campaign is the one that will win.

Kuster showed how this played out in 2010 when she ran was the well-funded progressive challenging perceived Democratic front-runner Katrina Swett. In the years since progressives have lost favor with Kuster. One group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, strongly backed Kuster in 2010 and 2012, only to totally drop her once she starting voting in Congress.

As one top Democratic put it to me: Shea-Porter would beat Kuster 10 to 1 in a Democratic primary for the Senate. Sure, Kuster can raise more money, but Shea-Porter has the Democratic base locked down in the state’s 1st Congressional District and would be favored in the more liberal 2nd Congressional District.

In 2012, when Hassan ran for governor the first time, she faced a challenge from the left. Hassan’s opponent, former state Sen. Jackie Cilley, lacked fundraising and no one really knew who she was, reasons that she wasn’t a perfect candidate. Hassan deserves credit for that win. What few know, however, is that Hassan was flown to Washington and encouraged to take on Shea-Porter in a Democratic Primary. Hassan turned down that idea. In the end, two other Democrats did challenge Shea-Porter, but dropped out before they could even put their name on the ballot.

And unlike Hassan and Kuster, Shea-Porter is won't be in office next year and has nothing to lose by running.

Until she takes her name out of contention, watch Shea-Porter.

If Shea-Porter decides not to run for the Senate seat, she is likely to oust teabagger Frank Guinta, just like she did in 2012 when she beat him 171,356 (50%) to 158,482 (46%), with several thousand more votes than Kuster got in NH-02, despite Kuster's much easier terrain and despite Obama's much bigger win in NH-02.

Will Her Fealty To The NRA Cost Kelly Ayotte A New Hampshire Senate Seat?

Will McCain & Lindsey be able to find a third Stooge in 2016?

Half the voters in New Hampshire are telling pollsters they are less likely to vote to reelect Kelly Ayotte because she voted against the bipartisan background check amendment last week. And her approval rating is underwater, down 15 points since her blatant NRA asskissing. An editorial from Sunday's Portsmouth Herald" If you want gun control, vote Ayotte out of office:

New Hampshire voters who care passionately about sensible gun legislation can contribute to the effort by defeating U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, the only senator in New England to vote against the Toomey-Manchin bill. Ayotte justified her vote by parroting the NRA, saying the measure would "place unnecessary burdens on law-abiding gun owners and allow for potential overreach by the federal government into private gun sales."

In a January poll, New England College found 88 percent of Granite Staters support background checks, so it would seem Ayotte is far out of step with voters on this issue. She's up for re-election in 2016, a presidential election year that draws large numbers of independent voters who tend to support gun control. And the state has leaned Democratic in the last two presidential elections, so it's hard to see this as a political move.

Perhaps she believes that by 2016 people will have forgotten how she voted. Or perhaps she's counting on the historic lack of intensity from voters who favor gun control. If we don't like how she voted Wednesday it's up to all of us who care about this issue to show Sen. Ayotte she was mistaken by voting her out of office.

Yesterday, the Concord Monitor had a story reporting on a "blizzard of mail," mostly attacking Ayotte for her vote against background checks that were meant to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and the clinically insane.

A tweet by domestic terrorist and Texas congressman, NRA shill Steve Stockman, caused me to look into Ayotte's standing with New Hampshire voters. Stockman, the violent militia movement's biggest advocate in Congress, was claiming not one Republican would be hurt politically for opposing background checks. He based his assertion on this crackpot post by David Freddoso. Both would rather just ignore a far more trafficked poll from Fox News and just hope no one remembers anything beyond next week or next year:

Rand Paul Did Not Accept Any Bribes From The Drone Makers-- But Some Of The Other Filibusterers Are Totally On The Take

Aqua Buddha refused bribes from drone makers but his comrades in arms were all soliciting bribes

Buck McKeon isn't and never will be a U.S. senator. He's in the House and he's chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and the founder and chairman of the Unmanned Vehicles Caucus, better known as the Drone Caucus. He's responsible for all the legislation allowing drones to fly in Americans airspace, responsible, at least, in terms of introducing it. Obviously, the drone manufacturers' lobbyists wrote it for him. McKeon, who is likely to be a lobbyist for an arms manufacturer himself within just a few years, took more money than any other two Members of Congress from weapons manufacturers in general and he's taken $833,650 from drone-makers specifically. So I thought it odd that Rand Paul never even mentioned McKeon once during his wonderful filibuster against John Brennan, Obama's CIA nominee, Wednesday.

I was delighted to see that Rand Paul hasn't accepted any bribes at all from the drone makers. They've spent millions persuading Members of Congress that drones flying around America is a great idea-- and the sooner the better. So wasn't I surprised when I saw some of the senators who have been bought and paid for my the big drone manufacturers run up to share the stage with ole Rand once his filibuster got red hot and started to capture the imagination of the public!

The biggest drone makers are General Atomic Aeronautical, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Honeywell International, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon. They've been handing out the checks across the aisle big time and almost all of the filibusterers other than #StandWithRand took exceedingly large amounts of money from these drone makers. Just a quick glance coughed up these big donations to some of today's filibsterers last year. Kelly Ayotte was certainly the hypocrite of the day, but she didn't want for company:

• General Atomic- Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Miss McConnell (R-KY)
• Northrop Grumman- Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Pat Toomey (R-PA). Miss McConnell (R-KY)
• BAE Systems- Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Marco Rubio (R-FL)
• Honeywell International- Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Miss McConnell (R-KY)
• Lockheed Martin- Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) , Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Miss McConnell (R-KY)
• Raytheon- Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Miss McConnell (R-KY)

Congratulations to Rand Paul for refusing any of this blood money-- and for bringing up an important issue that most senators would just rather not discuss in public. Meanwhile, I think Kelly Ayotte, for starters, ought to write checks returning every cent she took from every single big drone manufacturer. Who does she think she is, Buck McKeon?

Buck McKeon (R-CA) took $833,650 in blatant bribes from drone makers