Votes Are Coming In And Trump Will Probably Be Stealing The White House Silverware On His Way Out

 

In 2016, Trump beat Hillary in Montana 279,240 (56.17%) to 177,709 (35.75%). Trump won 50 of Montana's 56 counties. According to a just-released poll from Montana State University, no one should expect anything like that in November. Trump is leading 51-44%, which shows Trump doing much worse than he did 4 years ago and Biden doing significantly better than Hillary. But the much better news for Democrats is that Democrat Steve Bullock is leading Trumpist incumbent Steve Daines 49-47% among likely voters. The poll shows Bullock receiving 97% of support from Democrats compared to Daines’ 88% from Republicans. Another 67% of independent voters also said they preferred Bullock, compared to 29% for Daines.

This is bad news for Trump, even if he wins Montana's 3 electoral votes. Biden doesn't need them nearly as much as he needs Bullock in the Senate instead of a toady like Daines. The poll shows Bullock with a 60% job approval rating compared to Daines' 55% and Trump's 51%.

Moving over to Texas, it's noteworthy that despite Gov. Abbott and the GOP trying to hold down voting, the first day of early voting saw over a million Texans line up and vote, a state record. Some waited on lines for hours, part of the GOP voter suppression program.

Early voting in Florida is also through the roof. "Republicans," wrote Marc Caputo, "typically hold a slight edge in absentee ballot returns in Florida elections. But this year, there’s been a stunning development.cFor the first time ever at this stage of a general election, Democrats here are outvoting Republicans-- and by a mammoth 384,000-vote margin through Tuesday... As of Tuesday, Democrats accounted for almost 51 percent of the nearly 1.8 million ballots cast so far. Republicans had cast about 520,000 ballots, or about 29 percent of the total. The remaining 20 percent of the ballots mailed in so far have been cast by independent voters who have no party affiliation or belong to minor third parties. The preference of these independent voters is harder to gauge, but polls suggest Biden is winning them. In addition, according to an internal analysis by Florida’s Democratic Party, its models show that 31 percent of those independent voters who have already cast ballots look like Democratic voters because their age and race more closely correlate with Biden voters; only 11 percent look like Trump voters."

Trump is leading by a polling average of 4.4 points in Texas but he's losing Florida by 2.7 points in an average that includes a phony-baloney poll from Republican operatives pretending to be pollsters (Trafalgar). A poll from Quinnipiac last week showed Trump losing by 11 points in Florida, with Biden kicking his lard ass 51-40%.

Yesterday the Washington Post reporters Amy Gardner and Elise Viebeck wrote that "With less than three weeks to go before Nov. 3, roughly 15 million Americans have already voted in the fall election, reflecting an extraordinary level of participation despite barriers erected by the coronavirus pandemic-- and setting a trajectory that could result in the majority of voters casting ballots before Election Day for the first time in U.S. history... The picture is so stark that election officials around the country are reporting record early turnout, much of it in person, meaning that more results could be available on election night than previously thought.

So far, much of the early voting appears to be driven by heightened enthusiasm among Democrats. Of the roughly 3.5 million voters who have cast ballots in six states that provide partisan breakdowns, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by roughly 2 to 1, according to a Washington Post analysis of data in Florida, Iowa, Maine, Kentucky, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

...[T]he early numbers are proving to be larger than even Democrats predicted. Three out of four voters in Pennsylvania who have returned their ballots, for instance, are registered Democrats. In increasingly Democratic Virginia, where early voting began in September with hours-long lines in suburban Washington, nearly 1.7 million voters had cast ballots by Wednesday, according to the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project-- more than triple the number who voted early or by mail overall in 2016. In Kentucky, nearly 70 percent of mail ballots cast have come from registered Democrats.

In Georgia, so many people were determined to vote in person at the first chance of early voting Monday that they withstood lines that lasted throughout the day. A record 242,000 people voted in the first two days.

...[N]early 40 percent of those who voted Monday in Georgia were Black, and 56 percent were women, according to state election data. Two years ago, when Democrat Stacey Abrams, who is Black, narrowly lost the race for Georgia governor, 34 percent of the electorate was Black, according to U.S. census data. In that election, the share of women who voted was 56 percent, the same as the proportion of early voters now.

“Are you seeing the same thing I’m seeing?” asked one Republican strategist in Georgia who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly, when shown the numbers. “This state is blue.”

Trump came up with an idea he could buy 33 million seniors' votes with a $200 discount card for pharmacies, so he must have been crestfallen yesterday to find out that the cards-- which haven't been approved by Congress and are probably an illegal use of taxpayer money-- will mostly be mailed out after Election Day. Instead, he's openly begging for votes. At one of his super-spreader rallies in Pennsylvania yesterday he said "Suburban women, will be please like me? I saved your damn neighborhood."

The answer is no. Just ask Bette Midler:

In 2016, Trump won voters who lived in the suburbs-- 49% of the total electorate-- by 2 points over Hillary Clinton, according to Pew.

Two years later, the President's party was crushed in the 2018 midterms-- losing control of the House-- thanks in large part to a suburban revolt against Trump. House Democratic candidates won 52% of suburban voters as compared to just 45% for House GOPers.

Unfortunately for Trump-- and down-ballot Republicans-- the 2018 midterms weren't the low ebb for the President in the eyes of suburbanites.

States like Colorado, Pennsylvania, Texas, Georgia and Florida-- where much of the population resides in suburban areas-- have all moved away from Trump over the past few years.

Colorado looks to be out of reach for the President, and his struggles will likely cost Republican Sen. Cory Gardner his seat. Pennsylvania remains a possibility for Trump but his poor performance in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh suburbs could be too big a hole for him to dig out of.

Florida, Texas and Georgia are all toss ups at this point, largely due to Trump's underperformance in the suburban areas of the state.

The problem for Trump is that knowing he has a problem in the suburbs and fixing it are two very different things. Trump, as his quote on Tuesday night makes clear, has tried to scare women in the suburbs into voting for him; if Joe Biden wins, he claim with little subtlety, roving gangs of Antifa supporters will invade your suburban paradise.

But female suburban voters aren't buying it. As the New York Times wrote last month, citing polling data in Minnesota and Wisconsin:

"President Trump's effort to court suburban women by promising to protect their neighborhoods is encountering one sizable hitch: Most suburban women say their neighborhoods aren't particularly under threat."

I Doubt The Tax Returns Will Lose Him Any Votes, But They May Send Him To Prison-- And Wouldn't You Prefer That Anyway?

 

Lawless Zone by Nancy Ohanian

Will the NY Times blockbuster from Sunday night matter election-wise. It will matter to some people, but those people have by and large already decided they're not voting for Trump. Maybe there are some Republican businessmen and women who dutifully pay their taxes and will resent Trump enough to sit out election day-- though I wouldn't bet on that being too many. At best the stories that will emanate from him being a tax swindler will knock Trump off his game and keep him rattled and on the defensive.

In his Bloomberg News oped yesterday, Trump's Taxes Show He's a National Security Threat, Timothy O'Brien raised something more important that how Trump's base will react. "What trade-offs," he asked, "would a president with this level of indebtedness be willing to make to save face? And few people know as much about the tax-swindling nature of Donald than O'Brien who had tangled with him in and out of court for years. "Step away from the tragicomic tawdriness and grift that the tax returns define," wrote O'Brien, "however, and focus on what they reveal about Trump as the most powerful man in the world and occupant of the Oval Office. Due to his indebtedness, his reliance on income from overseas and his refusal to authentically distance himself from his hodgepodge of business, Trump represents a profound national security threat-- a threat that will only escalate if he’s re-elected. The tax returns also show the extent to which Trump has repeatedly betrayed the interests of many of the average Americans who elected him and remain his most loyal supporters."

According to The Times, Trump has about $421 million in debts which he has personally guaranteed and which are coming due over the next several years. This is consistent with earlier reporting about how much debt he carries, a chunk of which could be gleaned from the personal financial disclosures he is required to file with the federal government. But Trump’s overall indebtedness is greater than the Times tally, I believe.

...Dan Alexander, a senior editor at Forbes, has been covering Trump’s business interests since 2016 and has a new book out about the president’s financial conflicts of interest, White House Inc. Alexander, in a helpful tally he shared Sunday evening, estimates Trump’s total indebtedness to be about $1.1 billion...

Trump has been bloviating about being worth $10 billion ever since he entered the 2016 presidential race, a figure that simply isn’t true. He’s worth a fraction of that amount, and the larger his indebtedness becomes, the more strain it puts on his assets. The Covid-19 pandemic has taken a particularly brutal toll on the sectors in which the Trump Organization operates-- real estate, travel and leisure. If Trump is unable to meet his debt payments, he’s either going to have to sell assets or get bailed out by a friend with funds. Trump has never liked to sell anything, even when it’s hemorrhaging money. So if he’s tempted to save himself by getting a handout, that makes him a mark.

...If Vladimir Putin, for example, can backchannel a loan or a handout to the president, how hard is Trump going to be on Russia? Not that we should worry about Trump’s relationship with Putin. That’s just a hypothetical question.

And then there's Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the Emirates, Israel, China, Brazil, the Philippines... and number of countries run by unscrupulous politicians who Trump would be more than willing to take bribes from. Will it change votes? Nah, but, hey, how bad to you want to see that slob rotting in prison?





Yesterday, Morris Pearl, the Chair of the Patriotic Millionaires and a former managing director of BlackRock, Inc. wrote that "It seems obvious that Trump has committed some amount of criminal tax evasion, but that's not the biggest issue here. The real problem is a system that provides such absurd loopholes to the ultra-wealthy in the first place, and a deliberately underfunded IRS that lacks the capacity to properly prosecute rich people's criminal tax evasion. Trump's case may be particularly egregious, but he's far from unique. This is just evidence of the rot in our tax system, which is designed to allow rich people to avoid paying their fair share. This has been the case for decades, but the tax code is even more skewed in favor of the rich and powerful after Trump was able to rewrite the entire tax code to his liking in 2017 with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The American people should be angry about President Trump's tax evasion, but that's not all. They should be much more angry about how much of what Trump did is legal. The American people should be more angry about how many other millionaires and billionaires are able to avoid supporting the country that made them rich in the first place. Most of all, the American people should be pissed off about the fact that instead of offering them health care, or affordable childcare, or financial support during a pandemic, their government instead prioritizes protecting the wealth of the rich, powerful, and selfish."


This morning, Ted Lieu (D-CA), co-chair of the of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, reminded me that "When Trump announced that he was running for President he said he would run the government like a business. Unfortunately, he meant a Trump business. Now we know why he was so intent on not releasing his tax returns. It has now come to light that Trump has grossly mismanaged his business and personal finances the same way he has mismanaged our government. He has also paid virtually no federal income tax over the past 15 years, which makes it extra rich when he insults hard working immigrants-- many of whom have contributed far more to this country than Trump ever will. But perhaps the most important aspect of this is the implications for our national security. Trump's massive debt makes him a security liability. Who exactly does he owe more than $400 million to?"

If A Republican Wins, Can He Move Backwards On Climate? Mike Bloomberg Isn't Worried

As far as I can tell, billionaire and former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg contributes to mainstream Republicans and right-of-center Democrats. Sometimes he writes checks directly to the candidates-- as he did for conservaDem and Steve Israel squeeze Anna Throne-Holst ($5,400) June 30, who's running as a Democrat-- though she isn't one-- against Republican Lee Zeldin out in Suffolk County. And, as he's done for Joe Crowley, until recently the head of the pro-Wall Street New Dems (also $5,400) and for Republican-turned Blue Dog Brad Ashford, but most of his campaign contributions seem to go through his one-man PAC, Independence USA PAC, to which he's given over-- well over-- $20,000,000. Bloomberg also wrote huge personal checks to the Democrats' Senate Majority PAC ($2.5 million), their House Majority PAC ($2,248,000) and the DCCC ($100,000), all of which tend to spend money on right-of-center, pro-Wall Street Democrats. He also gave $2,800,000 to the EMILY's List PAC (Women Vote!), which also tends to spend money primarily on right-of-center, pro-Business Democratic Party women.

Bloomberg busies himself working on the front lines with Bette Midler, David Geffen and Yoko Ono making New York City a more livable (and beautiful) place to live through the largest privately-funded green initiative in the history of planet earth, through the New York Restoration Project, which was originally founded by Midler in 1995, and his own MillionTreesNYC.

Yesterday he wrote an OpEd for his own eponymous news service, What Paris Talks Have Accomplished So Far, which helps explain why he's still contributing to conservatives in federal races rather than just funding Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign as he should be doing. He starts off by explaining that the UN conference in Paris "has already been a clear-cut success in two critical areas" and those two areas he's concerned with-- cities and businesses-- are not going be undermined if some Climate Change denier like Rubio or Cruz gets into the White House and rips up whatever accord comes out of the Paris conference. He writes that the actions from cities and businesses are even more important that the accord by governments that could be undermined by a future GOP president. Bloomberg takes solace that "leaders in both groups made it clear that they will not wait for an agreement that, if it comes together, won’t even take full effect until 2020." Before we look at the rest of Mayor Mike's OpEd, consider this poll data from a survey released by PPP of New Hampshire registered voters (both parties) this morning:

Mayors and officials representing more than 500 cities organized and attended their own summit in Paris (which Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and I co-hosted). It was the first time local leaders had ever gathered in such numbers during a UN climate-change conference. They came not only to ensure that their voices were heard by heads of state, but also to express their determination to act on their own, and to learn from one another and share best practices.

Cities account for about 70 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions, and while some heads of state have been arguing over which countries should do more, cities recognize that reducing their emissions is in their own best interest. After all, when cities cut their emissions, they help their residents live longer, healthier lives. When they improve the energy efficiency of their buildings, they save their taxpayers money. When they invest in modern low-carbon infrastructure, they raise their residents’ standard of living. Taken together, these actions make cities more attractive to businesses and investors. Even if climate change were not a concern, reducing emissions would be smart policy.

City leaders rarely need to be convinced of the benefits of climate-related actions, and in Paris, they committed to doing more. By Saturday, more than 400 cities had signed the Compact of Mayors, which requires them to set bold climate goals, adopt a common measurement system for emissions, and publicly report their progress. If so many cities can agree to these three actions, why not nations?

The Compact of Mayors is the best insurance we have against backsliding by central governments, and it’s the best hope we have-- along with technological innovation-- for accelerating the pace of change in every region of the world over the next five years.

The private sector will drive technological innovation, but the pace of change is being artificially slowed by a market failure: the inability of investors to accurately value companies that carry climate-related risks. That will soon start to change.

On Friday in Paris, Mark Carney, chairman of the Group of 20’s Financial Stability Board, announced the creation of the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (which I agreed to serve on as chairman). Carney is creating this industry-led task force, which will build on the work of other organizations in this field, to bring transparency to the opaque risks that climate change presents to markets around the world.

Sea-level rise, storms, droughts-- they all have harmful effects on business: delaying shipping, disrupting supply lines and damaging facilities. Yet, investors are often flying blind when it comes to these and other climate-related risks.

The market cannot accurately value companies, and investors cannot efficiently allocate capital, without reliable data on the risks they face. Furthermore, as the world transitions to a low-carbon economy, structural shifts in carbon-heavy industries will occur that will affect their growth and employment. Investors ought to have reliable information about which, and to what extent, companies are exposed to those shifts. That requires common measuring and reporting systems, which the new task force will work to create.

To be clear: Disclosure will be voluntary, and the task force will not seek to change laws about what must be disclosed by companies. Our aim will be to make disclosure easier, more complete and more useful to companies and investors. We expect strong participation from the financial sector, because the true beneficiaries of this information will be financial firms and investors. The better data they have, the better chance we have of mitigating market volatility and instability that arises from climate change and the policy responses to it.

The work that cities and businesses are doing will play a central role in the fight against climate change. In fact, even though any global agreement may not hold the planet's temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, the events of the first week have the potential to narrow the gap between what nations are willing to do and what scientists tell us is necessary to avert to the most harmful effects of climate change.

Cities and businesses can achieve reductions that go well beyond the pledges made by nations, and that will put the future of the planet-- and markets-- on firmer footing.

He's right... probably. But he should still help Bernie win. He can send a check to the Blue America Independent Expenditure PAC and we'll make sure it get spent properly in electing the only presidential candidate who isn't backing away from Climate Change as the real existential threat to mankind (rather than, say, ISIS, which is what the media and the other candidates are putting out 24/7). Speaking to a large audience of supporters in Keene, New Hampshire Saturday, he said "As a nation and as a people, we have got to understand that our country faces a myriad of very serious problems… if you turn on the TV, what they now say is, 'Well we’ve got one problem, it’s ISIS. We don’t have to worry about old people not having enough to eat. We don’t have to worry about having more people in jail than any other country. We don’t have to worry about the disappearing middle class. We don’t have to worry about economic and wealth inequality… we don’t have to worry about institutional racism, or a broken criminal justice. We don’t have to worry about that. All we should focus on now, 24/7, is ISIS.' [W]e’re talking about, according to the CIA, future, major national security issues when people are forced to migrate because their countries or their land are flooded, they can’t grow food. We’re talking about a major, major crisis... The debate is over. Climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and it is already causing profound disturbances all over America and all over the world." He feels we can deal with ISIS and chew gum at the same time and warns that the Republicans, in thrall to Big Oil, is "rejecting science" and putting the country on a profoundly dangerous path. Look, in case Mayor Mike doesn't see this-- or decides not to send Blue America a million dollars to help fund Bernie's campaign-- can you spare $10 or $20 direct to Bernie? Or even an automatic monthly contribution between now and when Trumpf feels the ultimate Bern in 11 months?

Rightists Stepping In It... People Watching

I've never been a big Bette Midler fan-- other than her amazing duet with Bob Dylan on "Buckets of Rain"-- but yesterday she was on CNN Headline News, Glenn Beck's old home, with Joy Behar. It was Behar's debut on the network and she and Bette spent some time talking about the serious consequences of ranting maniacs like Glenn Beck could have on the country's social fabric. Take a look:



Beck then went on the air to call her a cancer and make fun of her music and movies and wallow in victimhood. Meanwhile, the Beckoids over at Newsmax have taken down John Perry column calling for a military coup against Obama. I guess they're embarrassed by their publishing miscalculation.

And speaking of Beckoids, it looks like John Boehner and Eric Cantor decided to rein in Georgia kook Tom Price, understanding full well the impact of a resolution condemning Alan Grayson's perfectly reasonable remarks about the GOP health reform plan that corporate sadsacks Roy Blunt and then Paul Ryan failed to deliver. The prospect of videos of wild-eyed Republican extremists like Steve King (R-IA), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Paul Broun (R-GA), Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), Louie Gohmert (R-TX) proving Grayson's while making up lies about how Democrats want to kill people with their health care plans probably looked decidedly unappetizing as the moment for a privileged motion drew nearer and Grayson seemed more and more reasonable and more and more likely to hold his ground. More Democrats like Alan Grayson is exactly what the country needs-- lots more. Please consider donating to the Blue America Getting Grayson's Back page where over 600 donors have already given more than $20,000 in just 24 hours.


UPDATE: Funeral Directors Endorse GOP Health Care "Reform"

Yesterday we mentioned that the funeral industry supports many of the Republicans who have been screaming the loudest over Alan Grayson's revelation of the GOP prescription for a health care plan: "either avoid getting sick or, if that fails, die and die fast." Turns out the Borowitz Report went into that today as well.

Congressional Republicans received key backing today for their health care plan, picking up support from the National Association of Undertakers.

The funeral directors' group, which represents undertakers, embalmers and hearse drivers across the country, gave the GOP plan a big thumbs up, saying in a press release, "Finally, a health care plan that works for us."

The endorsement from the undertakers' association was the second major endorsement in two days for the GOP plan, which yesterday picked up support from the National Association of Viruses and Bacteria. 

UPDATE: Alan Grayson's Not Done With The GOP Yet

Yesterday, Grayson kept up his attack, going on MSNBC and pointing out that the Republicans have not been good faith players in the health care debate. "America is sick of you, Republican Party; you're a lie factory, that's all you do... Why don't you work together with the Democrats to solve America's problems instead of making stuff up?"