Republican-Lite Democrats Are Only Good At One Thing: Losing

You think Democratic primary voters want this as their candidate against Trump?

A silly new poll from Morning Consult purports to show something about how the 2020 Democratic nomination is shaping up. The same kind of lo-info, identity politics idiots who saddled the party with Hillary Clinton in 2016, want Joe Biden in 2020. Will Democratic primary voters ever think about where a candidate might actually want to take the country rather than the color of their skin or the shape of their genitals? I think so. But it takes some kind of concentration, which isn’t easy when you’re talking about something years in the future (even just 2). Anyway, that list up top is the latest iteration of the laughable horserace tabulation, different from Monday’s. What! No groundswell for the Starbucks guy? No Mayor Buttfuck Buttigieg? No Terry McAuliffe? Where’s The Rock and Hillary, all the governors who want to form unity tickets with John Kasich and the backbencher congressmen no one ever heard of like John Delaney who’s been living in Iowa campaigning for a year and only tangentially more absurd than Seth Moulton or Tulsi Gabbard?

Note: This is stupid, so don't take it seriously

Have you read Steve Phillips’ NY Times’ OpEd about why a conservative Democrat is not going to win in 2020? He implores Democrats to learn “the right lessons from the midterms. He wrote that conventional wisdom dictated that both Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams “did not give Democrats their best chance; more traditional, moderate white candidates were seen as the most competitive. In this view, moderate candidates can better appeal to and win over ‘swing’ white voters. And yet, and yet… “Over the past 20 years, the best-performing Democratic candidates in statewide elections in Florida and Georgia have been Mr. Obama, Mr. Gillum and Ms. Abrams. (Hillary Clinton in 2016 was actually Florida’s highest Democratic vote-getter ever.) This year, Ms. Abrams dramatically increased Democratic turnout, garnering more votes— 1.9 million— than any other Democrat running for any office in the history of Georgia (and that includes Jimmy Carter, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton).”

Midterm results laid bare the fallacy of that view. In Missouri, Claire McCaskill, the incumbent Democratic senator, lost to Josh Hawley by six percentage points, 45.5 percent to 51.5 percent. Senator McCaskill campaigned by highlighting her moderate credentials and ran a radio ad distancing herself from her party: “Claire’s not one of those crazy Democrats,” a narrator said. “She works right in the middle and finds compromise.”

In Tennessee, Phil Bredesen, the state’s former governor, lost his bid for the Senate by over 10 points despite his attempt to peel off Trump supporters by coming out in support of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

The day Bredesen came out in favor of Kavanaugh— leading in nearly a dozen consecutive polls at the time— I wrote that Democrats could kiss base enthusiasm and the Tennessee Senate seat goodbye. Bredesen, a mainstream conservative, outspent extremist Marsha Blackburn $15,246,145 ($5,516,942 from his own fortune) to $11,819,522 and Schumer’s Majority Forward SuperPac and Senate Majority PAC threw another $18.5 million into Tennessee on behalf of Bredesen. But no amount of money could save him after that stupid, pointless statement. So… will Democrats learn the right lesson? Out of the question— at least for life-long know-it-alls like Schumer (and Pelosi, Hoyer and other party leaders).

Phillips suggests looking more closely at Georgia, contrasting the 2014 election and the recent midterm. “The strategy of wooing supposedly moderate whites was put to the ultimate test when Democrats fielded nominees from two of the most prominent Democratic families in the history of Georgia-- the Carters and the Nunns. Jimmy Carter’s grandson Jason Carter ran for governor, and former Senator Sam Nunn’s daughter Michelle Nunn ran for Senate. Together their campaigns spent more than $20 million, pouring enormous sums into television advertising seeking to persuade moderate whites to back their bids.”

They both lost, with about 45% of the vote each. This cycle Stacey Abrams is governing around 49% as more voters are counted in an incredibly corrupt electoral environment. And in the 6th district, where ultimate milquetoast moderate Jon Ossoff— with every dime the Democratic establishment could raise for him-- lost last year, “riding the swell of turnout inspired and organized by Ms. Abrams, the Democrat Lucy McBath flipped that seat.”

Clearly success required a different strategy. Ms. Abrams and Mr. Gillum embraced the Obama playbook for winning elections: It starts with emphasizing mobilization over persuasion. Ms. Abrams’s campaign defied conventional wisdom by spending early and big on a vast mobilization effort that involved calling, texting and knocking on the doors of nearly 600,000 infrequent Georgia voters a full year before the election.

Mr. Gillum took a similar approach and was buoyed by the backing of organizations such as New Florida Majority, which hired community-based canvassers to knock on tens of thousands of their neighbors’ doors to identify and mobilize Gillum supporters long before the rest of the country caught on to his candidacy.

These campaigns laid the groundwork for future Democratic success, because the thousands of volunteers, operatives and new voters will pay dividends for the 2020 Democratic nominee.

Mr. Gillum and Ms. Abrams did exactly what Mr. Obama did: They inspired people across the racial spectrum to participate and vote, and they did it by being unapologetically progressive. They did not shy away from championing Medicaid expansion, pursuing criminal justice reform and promoting gun control policies.

Does this strategy require a candidate of color? No, but it does call for candidates who can inspire voters of color. Beto O’Rourke in Texas is an excellent example, and his inspiring and well-organized campaign brought him closer to winning statewide than any Democrat has come in Texas in years. And nationally, the Democrats reclaimed a majority in the House by winning in nearly a dozen districts with large populations of voters of color.

Ms. Abrams and Mr. Gillum were also not afraid to tackle the not-so-silent racist “dog whistles” emanating from their opponents and the president. Ms. Abrams refused to shirk from condemnation of racism and condemned the ways in which honoring racist imagery like the Confederate monument at Georgia’s Stone Mountain monument-- called out by name in Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech-- undermines democracy and distances entire groups from being part of the body politic. Mr. Gillum offered one of the greatest lines in the history of American politics when he offered, about his opponent, Ron DeSantis, during a debate: “I’m not calling Mr. DeSantis a racist. I’m simply saying the racists believe he’s a racist.”

Notably, this approach of tackling racism head-on is also the best way to woo many white voters. According to the exit polls, both Ms. Abrams and Mr. Gillum received more support from whites in their states than either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton did. White people-- all people-- want to believe in something. Challenging them to reject racism and embrace their highest and best ideals is the most effective way to secure their support.

Yes, the strategy of mobilizing voters of color and progressive whites is limited by the demographic composition of particular states. But what Mr. Obama showed twice is that it works in enough places to win the White House. And that is exactly the next electoral challenge.

Democrats can go the old route that has consistently failed to come close to winning and demoralized supporters down the line, or they can do the math and follow the example of Ms. Abrams and Mr. Gillum and Mr. Obama before them. Invest in the infrastructure and staffing to engage and mobilize voters. Stand as tall, strongly and proudly for the nation’s multiracial rainbow as Mr. Trump stands against it. And mobilize and call forth a new American majority in a country that gets browner by the hour and will be even more diverse by November 2020.

Other Than The Blow Voters Are Delivering Trump Today, Will We Defeat Any Of The Worst, Most Vile GOP?

You know who I'm thinking about, not the run-of-the-mill Republican garbage who "just" want to take away peoples' healthcare and see them starving in the streets; I'm mean the real neo-Nazi's inside the pup tent. Many of them are in blood red districts that are infested with brain-washed Fox zombies, like, for example, Matt Gaetz in Florida. But there are a handful up for reelection today who could go down, as long a shot as each case is. The defeat of Chris Collins (NY-27) and Steve King (IA-04) would be immense wins for political decency. So would an abrupt end to the political career of Devin Nunes (CA-22).

No one likes being lumped into the same category as Steve King, but there is another Republican incumbent-- a substance abuser currently out on bail and kicked off his committee by Paul Ryan as a national security risk-- who has earned the company: suburban and exurban San Diego County's Druncan Hunter (CA-50). And there are still hours and hours of voting left in California. Yesterday The Atlantic allowed McKay Coppins to lay the whole ugly Trump Era mess out: Duncan Hunter Is Running the Most Anti-Muslim Campaign in the Country. Before we start down this road though, it's important to know four facts about his progressive Democratic opponent, Ammar Campa-Najjar. (Yeah, I know, tough name, but otherwise as all American a kid as anyone you'll ever meet; besides, did you pick your name?)

• Ammar was born and raised a Christian and has been active in his church for his whole life
• Ammar was born 16 years after his grandfather in question had died. (For any Trump fan who might be reading this: that means he never met his grandfather.)
• Ammar worked in the Department of Labor and was thoroughly vetted for the Secret Service, passing a test that Druncan Hunter couldn't pass if his life depended on it
• Ammar, when asked, told me his favorite band is Metallica.

Hunter's problem isn't that his R+11 district has changed, it's that he was indicted of various and sundry corruption charges, arrested by the FBI and is hoping to be reelected despite being out on bail. Coppins is a gentleman and steers clear from some of the tawdry details of Hunter's lifestyle-- the hookers, untreated alcoholism, bribery, etc-- but even the polite stuff is eye-popping enough. He explained that "on August 22, federal prosecutors charged the lawmaker and his wife with stealing $250,000 in campaign funds. In a 47-page indictment littered with galling details, the Hunters were accused of using campaign cash to fund lavish family vacations; to pay for groceries, golf outings, and tequila shots; and even to fly a pet rabbit across the country. To cover their tracks, the indictment alleged, the Hunters often claimed that their purchases were for charitable organizations like the Wounded Warrior Project. The political backlash was swift and severe. Hunter was stripped of his committee assignments in the House. His fund-raising dried up, and Democratic money flooded into the district. When he tried to defend himself on Fox News, he exacerbated the crisis by appearing to pin the blame for the scandal on his wife." You want that for a congressman?

Publicly disgraced, out of money, and facing both jail time and a suddenly surging challenger-- what was an indicted congressman to do?

Eventually, Hunter seemed to arrive at his answer: Try to eke out a win by waging one of the most brazenly anti-Muslim smear campaigns in recent history.

In the final weeks of the election, Hunter has aired ominous ads warning that his Democratic opponent, Ammar Campa-Najjar, is “working to infiltrate Congress” with the support of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has circulated campaign literature claiming the Democrat is a “national security threat” who might reveal secret U.S. troop movements to enemies abroad if elected. While Hunter himself floats conspiracy theories from the stump about a wave of “radical Muslims” running for office in America, his campaign is working overtime to cast Campa-Najjar as a nefarious figure reared and raised by terrorists.

As multiple fact-checkers in the press have noted, these smears have no basis in reality. Campa-Najjar-- a 29-year-old former Barack Obama aide who is half-Latino, half-Arab-- is a devout Christian who received security clearance when he worked in the White House. His grandfather was involved in the massacre at the 1972 Munich Olympics, but he died 16 years before Campa-Najjar was born, and the candidate has repeatedly denounced him. (Growing up, Campa-Najjar became estranged from his father, a former Palestinian Authority official, and was raised primarily by his Mexican American mother.)

But facts do not appear to be Hunter’s chief concern. The political strategy here is self-evident: Feed on anti-Muslim prejudice to scare enough conservative voters into pulling the lever for the incumbent-- indictment be damned.

California’s Fiftieth District hasn’t drawn much attention from horse-race obsessives this year. There are other races with tighter polls, other House seats more likely to flip. But what’s unfolding here in the suburbs of San Diego represents an unnerving microcosm of this campaign season: white Republicans frightened by cynical conspiracy-mongers; religious minorities frightened by the fallout; a community poisoned by Trumpian politics-- and a bitter question hovering over the whole ugly affair: Will it ever get better?

Duncan Hunter is not an easy man to find these days. He rarely holds campaign rallies, and doesn’t attend town halls or debates. When I emailed his office asking for an interview, I was politely told my request would be added to the “list”-- and then ignored when I tried to follow up.

...On the whole, Campa-Najjar said he was surprised by how ham-fisted Hunter’s strategy had been. “I thought there would be more finesse to it,” he told me.

Now, though, he was more confident than ever that victory was at hand. With Obama-esque audacity, he began ticking off all the reasons to be optimistic. The district was more diverse than many realized. “McCain Republicans” were repelled by the Muslim-bashing. While his own campaign was infused with idealism and “youth,” Hunter’s was cloaked in the stench of “desperation.”

Very soon, he assured me, the good voters of the California Fiftieth would reject the ugly politics that had permeated their community this year and send him to Congress.

Perhaps detecting my skepticism, Campa-Najjar tried to conjure an alternative happy ending. “And if we fall short,” he tried, “we proved that we exceeded expectations and that...” but then he stopped himself. He couldn’t do it.

“I think we’re going to win.”

3 more hours to vote

Come to think of it, one of the House's most horrible creatures, Marsha Blackburn is running for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee. That's a very red state-- PVI is R+14 and Trump beat Hillary there 1,522,925 (60.7%) to 870,695 (34.7%). The results between Blackburn and Bredesen won't look like that tonight. Here's why:

• Early voting in Tennessee is at 95% of the total turnout for 2014.
• Early vote turnout among 18 and 29 year olds is up 317% compared to 2014.
• Early vote turnout among first time voters increased by 973% from 2014 (57,253). New voters represented 8% of the total early vote.
• 566,666 Tennesseans who did not vote in 2014 voted early this year. In other words, 40.81% of this year’s early voters did not vote in 2014.
• 105,487 Tennesseans (8% of the early voting electorate) did not vote in August 2018, 2016, or 2014. Half of these voters are under 50 years old.
• Women 40 years and younger increased their early vote participation by 266% from 2014.
• African American midterm early vote increased by 169% compared to 2014, largely due to increased participation among young African American voters.
• African American women vote increased by 172% compared to 2014.

Compared to all other states, Tennessee is now:

• #1 in overall increase of early votes cast compared to 2014
• #1 in the increase of 18-29 year olds voting

Still... it is Tennessee, so don't get your hopes up too high.

Meanwhile, NBC News reported this morning that top Republicans are shitting a brick over Trump's racist, xenophobic closing message. He's costing them independents and he's costing them the suburbs. Most of them believe "that his campaign rhetoric has gone too far and will cost some GOP candidates their races and jobs. Trump has spent the final stretch of this election season in some of the most conservative areas in the country, rallying his base of supporters by warning that Democrats will usher in an age of 'socialism' and 'open borders' if voters put them in charge of either chamber of Congress... [A]s voters head to the polls, some Republicans worry that message could backfire and cost some of the most vulnerable GOP House incumbents and candidates in suburban districts or in districts with larger minority populations." Because the fools looking for red meat and cheap entertainment who come to his rallies cheer all his lies, Trump has lost the ability to understand that 65% of the country doesn't believe a thing he says.

One Republican strategist said that Rep. John Culberson, who is in a tough re-election bid in a solidly Republican district in the Houston area, was polling four points ahead of his opponent, Democrat Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, in the days after the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

After Trump escalated his anti-immigrant rhetoric and visited Houston, internal polling showed Culberson down three points.

In some races, including Culberson's, “the certain tone and the certain issues he’s chosen to focus on is not helpful” the Republican strategist said.

...Other vulnerable Republicans are trying to counter Trump by focusing their campaign on local issues. Rep. Jeff Denham, who represents an agriculture district with a large Hispanic population in central California, has ignored Trump's national messaging on immigration and instead focused largely on water, a crucial issue there.

But if Republicans lose a large number of seats, someone will be blamed. And some Republicans are already pointing the finger at Trump.

Food fight coming tomorrow!

Phil Bredesen Probably Should Have Kept His Mouth Shut About Kavanaugh

Watch that lead disappear now

In 2016, Priorities USA raised $192,065,768, most of it from mega-donors like Donald Sussman ($15 million), the Sabans (over $12 million), George Soros (over $10 million). James Simons (over ($10 million), Fred Eychaner ($9 million), the Pritzkers ($6 million), Daniel Abraham ($5 million)... They gave EMILY's List over $14 million, VoteVets over $3 million, Planned Parenthood 2 million and millions more to other PACs. But their biggest expenditures were for Independent Expenditures against Trump ($126,049,815) and for Hillary ($6,455,293).

This cycle they're playing in congressional and gubernatorial politics. So far they've raised $18,212,305 (mostly from Soros and Sussman) and, as of August 31, had put $13,756,885 into Independent Expenditures. Their biggest expenditures were to help conservative Senate candidates Claire McCaskill ($2,732,707), Joe Donnelly ($2,206,454), Kyrsten Sinema ($2,062,863), and Bill Nelson ($1,146,503). They haven't spent anything to help progressives like Tammy Baldwin or Beto O'Rourke.

But there are a couple of other conservative Democrats they've been getting ready to jump in for-- until yesterday. They decided there would be no money to help Tennessee's Phil Bredesen and warned Joe Manchin that he's on shaky ground too. The ground is no longer shaky; he sold out again today. Disenchantment in both cases is because of the Kavanaugh confirmation battle. Bredesen said he would have voted to confirm Kavanaugh-- which will likely lose him the Senate race and Tennessee women abandon him in droves. They "also said it would steer clear of Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin’s reelection fight in West Virginia should he vote to confirm Kavanaugh on final passage this Saturday. On Friday, Manchin was the sole Democrat to vote to proceed with the nomination." It isn't likely Manchin needs their help.

The lack of help from Priorities USA won’t have much of a practical impact, in part because other Democratic-affiliated political outfits are heavily invested in the race. Majority Forward, a Democratic dark money group, has spent nearly $6.5 million backing Bredesen and attacking Blackburn. Bredesen has also received some air cover from a PAC affiliated with the United Steelworkers union.

Last week Bredesen issued a statement saying "This confirmation process has been abused by both parties, but some voices of sanity have finally appeared and this FBI investigation is an opportunity for the Senate to regain some of its self-respect. I cannot understand why any Senator, or Judge Kavanaugh himself, would not want the FBI to research these allegations. If they are unfounded, as the Judge claims, the FBI can erase a permanent stain on his appointment and on him personally. If the allegations have substance, any Senator of either party should want to take them into consideration before deciding on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. I would feel exactly the same if it were a Democratic appointment under consideration."

That was a smart approach for him. Yesterday he announced he would have voted to confirm Kavanaugh. Bad decision. But no one should have expected otherwise from him. He's a conservative. That's how conservatives role. Schumer knew it when he recruited him. Now it's just a matter of which will mean more in the election: conservative-leaning independents voting for him because he backed Kavanaugh or independent women and progressives not voting for him for the same reason.

Texas looks much better than Tennessee... and with no help from Schumer or the DSCC. Beto will owe them NOTHING if he gets into the Senate:

Can You Envision Arizona With Not One, But TWO Democratic Senators?

McCain and Woods

Unless you live in Arizona, you probably never heard of Grant Woods, who was Attorney General there from 1991 'til 1999. A mainstream conservative, he won his first race with 80% of the vote. Earlier, he had served as McCain's chief of staff when McCain was a congressman in the 1980s. He remained very close with McCain for the decades that followed. Grant is also a member of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, made up of the top 500 trial lawyers in the world. In 2016 he publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton, writing that "Hillary Clinton is one of the most qualified nominees to ever run for president. Donald Trump is the least qualified ever. The stakes are too high to stand on the sideline. I stand with Hillary Clinton for president." Within days of McCain's passing, Chuck Schumer started the process of recruiting Woods, still a Republican, to run for his seat, as a "Democrat."

When McCain died, Gov. Doug Ducey appointed ultra-conservative former Senator Jon Kyl to the seat but he has indicated he isn't interested in running in the 2020 special election to fill the rest of McCain's term. Woods is. Sunday he penned an OpEd for the Arizona Republic, Why John McCain's death may convince me to run for Senate (just not as a Republican).

Woods sees McCain as a hero, whose public life could be summed up as "Duty. Honor. Country." and wrote that "the giant hole left by his death has caused me to re-evaluate my own life."

I was 28 when I went to work for John. I stood by his side for a long time. When I was 34, I looked at running for Arizona attorney general against a three-term incumbent in our own party. I wanted to run on a consumer protection, environmental enforcement and civil rights platform.

I was a former public defender who had never prosecuted. It would be an uphill battle. John McCain didn’t hesitate. He said, “Let’s go win this thing.”

I served two terms, finished with high numbers, but never ran for office again. There are many fascinating things to do in the world, and politics is only one of them. So, I’ve been on the sidelines for 20 years. But is that acceptable anymore, especially in a time of national crisis?

I believe that lasting damage has been done by leaders who regularly degrade our American institutions with their words and their conduct.

Congress was never meant to be a rubber stamp, but is instead a co-equal branch and a check on executive overreach. Our judiciary may be flawed, but I know from experience that it strives to meet its goals of impartiality and fairness. And a free press is a lynchpin for all of our freedoms. Those who urge distrust and disrespect to these institutions are themselves disrespecting and hurting America.

If I believe that our country is in perilous times, what is my responsibility as a citizen to do something about it? I have to do more, that much is clear.

But does that mean I have to run for office again, this time for my mentor John McCain’s seat in the United States Senate? Maybe it does. I am trying to figure that out by reaching out and listening to as many people across the state and nation that I can.

I will have to decide soon.

Why not stay in the Republican Party and try to change it from within? It’s reasonable to consider, but I don’t think it is possible.

Barry Goldwater couldn’t win a Republican primary today. A principled conservative like Jeff Flake decided that he couldn’t either.

The Republican Party has abandoned its tethering philosophy and surrendered its moral authority because it wanted to stay in power. I want no part of it. The party of limited government has sold its soul to enjoy the power of government. History has never been kind to those who made such a treacherous bargain.

I have the option of running as an independent. Frankly, it suits me and would be a lot of fun.

I believe that the right person could win statewide in Arizona because our state and its people have always been a little anti-establishment and contrary. But a U.S. Senate race is very expensive, and it would be foolish to enter such a battle unarmed. So I have to decide if running as an independent is possible or only for the rich.

If I don’t run as an independent, then I will switch to a Democrat. I have many good friends in the Senate who are Democrats, and the prospect of working closely again with them is exciting. We didn’t care about party or the odds against us when we sued Big Tobacco or any of the other fights we undertook together as attorneys general.

We did what we thought was right. Period. It would be exciting to put the old band back together again.

I will not change my views or the things that I have fought for all my life to run for office. I am who I am. Fortunately, my views are in line with the mainstream of the Democratic Party. I can’t check any of the boxes associated with identity politics, and if that is required, then it won’t happen. But I have fought the good fight in hostile territory for all of my life. That should count for something.

For now, we need to support people who will stand up to the autocratic megalomaniacal behavior of the president.

We need to fight against immoral policies like the separation of children from their parents at our Arizona border or the deportation of those brought here as children. We have to preserve the beautiful natural resources of our state and nation. We have to fight for the dignity and values of the working man and woman.

I do believe that America is worth fighting for in 2020, just as it was in 1776. I don’t believe we need to make it great again; it is already great. I don’t believe that its institutions and values are corrupted or outdated.

Actually, it’s quite the contrary.

This country of ours was always an aspirational experiment. We said what few had ever said: that all people are created equal, and every one of them has a God-given right to be free.

But it has been a long struggle to achieve that goal. The civil rights we guaranteed in our declarations and our Constitution were unavailable to so many for much of our history. But we have never stopped fighting to achieve those lofty goals.

We have to realize now that it is our duty to keep the fight alive and to never surrender to those who are ignorant of the perils of history or the glory of what we seek to achieve.

I have always been unashamed to say how much I love Arizona. We have produced great leaders before, and I know we can do it again.

Each of us, though, needs to take a step back at this critical time and ask what is required of us now as Americans. I do not know what this will mean for me in the months ahead. But I know that John McCain never took the easy way out. He was always in the arena. He saw no honor on the sidelines.

In his eulogy to our friend, Henry Kissinger said that “honor is an intangible quality. It has no code. It reflects an inward compulsion, free of self-interest. It fulfills a cause, not a personal ambition. It represents what a society lives for beyond the necessity of the moment.”

Duty. Honor. Country. This meant everything to John McCain. It has to mean more to each of us, especially in times like this. It’s up to us now.

Kyrsten Sinema, a putative Democrat, is probably going to win the other Arizona seat in November. She has the single most anti-progressive voting record in the House and she chairs the right-wing Blue Dog Caucus. Schumer didn't recruit her despite that; he recruited her because of it. Meanwhile Republicans are campaigning against her as if she was so far left that she's basically a communist. On many matters she's to the right of Woods. Over the weekend, AP ran a piece about how Tennessee ex-Governor Phil Bredesen (D) is running for Senate by edging away from the party. "Phil Bredesen is a Democrat," wrote Julie Pace. "But he’d rather you not mention that." Bredesen told her that he needs "to make clear to everybody my independence from all of the national Democratic stuff." Pace: "He says Democrats wouldn’t be able to reliably count on his vote in the Senate, and foresees playing a role like that of Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who has broken with the GOP on several high-profile issues. 'I think you can be influential being in that swing position,' Bredesen said during an interview. Influential? Sure, if he's elected, he'll be another Democrap watering down key legislation to make it meaningless, the way Lieberman used to do. I would imagine Woods will be worse than either Sinema or Bredesen.

How is he on women's Choice? Would he be voting to confirm Kavanaugh? Where does he stand on immigration reform? The military/industrial complex of which his hero was so in love him? I'd like to know his vision of America's foreign policy. I mean, it's nice that he saw the danger of Trump early and endorsed Hillary. But Schumer deciding to endorse him doesn't make him a Democrat, let alone a progressive. I'd love to talk about Medicare-for-All with him, Job Guarantee and free state college. I'd like to sit him down with Stephanie Kelton for a little chit-chat and see if he can understand MMT. And if he decides to run... I'll give it a try.

Two Months From Tomorrow...

But rotten conservative DCCC staffer is working to undermine him

Saturday, President Obama headlined a rally in Anaheim for California Democratic candidates that the DCCC is pushing: Katie Porter, Harley Rouda, Mike Levin, Gil Cisneros, Josh Harder and T.J. Cox. Katie Hill was also invited but had a previous commitment. Conservative racist staffers at the DCCC are seeking to undermine Ammar Campa-Najjar, who infuriated them by beating their right-wing corporate schmuck candidate in the primary, so they didn't invite him. Ammar,who used to work for Obama, was personally invited by the president and showed up-- but was kept off the stage by a DCCC stooge, Kyle Layman, who doesn't care what President Obama wants as long as he can fulfill his own right-wing agenda. People are always asking me what Layman has over Dan Sena and Ben Ray Lujan that make them keep him around. He really is a cancer on the 2018 election cycle. You can say "fuck you" to the DCCC by contributing to Ammar's campaign here. Obama seemed to be promising ultimate hope for Americans sick of the lies, chaos and dysfunction that define the Trump Regime and the Republicans in Congress who enable it: "When we're not stepping up, other voices fill the void. The good news is in two months, we have a chance to restore sanity in our politics."

Over the weekend, Phil Rucker at the Washington Post, among others, made the point that the midterms have shaped up to be all about Trump-- very bad news for Republicans, especially for Republicans in swing districts where Trump is detested. Even when poll respondents say they will be voting on issues like healthcare or jobs, ultimately it is always either a wish to find candidates to hold Trump accountable or, among imbeciles, a wish to find candidates to back Trump's toxic, suicidal agenda that dominates.

Rucker wrote that "The Nov. 6 election that will determine control of Congress is likely to hinge on the president-- the man and his rash actions, more so than his policies-- to a remarkable degree. The spike in Democratic enthusiasm that has Republicans fearful of losing their House majority is driven largely by opposition to Trump personally-- his attacks on civic institutions, his impetuousness and the chaos that tornadoes around him-- strategists on both sides say."

Mike Allen reported that on Wednesday afternoon, Republican congressional leaders met with Trump in the Roosevelt Room. They were cranky and complaining-- the House leaders know they're likely to be in the minority come January, helped along by his tariffs and unpopularity. POTUS shared their mood: This was Woodward-anonymous week." Claims that Trump, an economic illiterate and bumbling moron, is behind the economic expansion that Obama engineered and put into play, are not going to do much for Republicans in November, primarily because, as Allen writes, "despite relative prosperity in the nation and peace in the world, both sides expect a slash-and-burn fall-- focused on what they see as the evil intent of the other side, and aimed at inflaming their own voters." In the end, more voters hate Trump than like him. He's incredibly unpopular going into a first term midterm and it is not a stretch to see his party lose 60 or more seats. (If the DCCC didn't exist in its current form, there is little doubt the Republicans would lose 100 seats.)

The latest poll by IPSOS for Reuters is just devastating for Trump and his supporters. Among registered voters 55% disapprove and just 42% approve. It's even worse among independents-- who will determine the midterm results-- 56% disapproving and just 38% approving.

In terms of Congress, disapproval was even worse. Among Democrats 76% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. 56% of Republicans agree and so do 66% of independents. When asked which party's candidate they plan to vote for in November, 44% said Democrats and 35% said Republicans. Among independents only 18% say they plan to vote for a Republican (while 29% say they'll vote for a Democrat).

How are these numbers impacting individual races? Last week Marist polled Indiana's Senate race for NBC. With a statewide R+9 PVI (same as Mississippi and Missouri), Indiana gave Trump a 1,557,286 (56.8%) to 1,033,126 (37.9%) win over Hillary. She won only 4 of the state's 92 counties. The new poll shows Democrat Joe Donnelly beating Trumpist Mike Braun 49-43% among likely voters.

Tennessee is even redder than Indiana. The statewide PVI Is R+14. Trump eviscerated Hillary 1,522,925 (60.7%) to 870,695 (34.7%). She won 3 counties out of the state's 95.And yet... all the non-partisan polling shows Democrat Phil Bredensen leading extreme Trumpist Marsha Blackburn. The latest, by Marist for NBC, has Bredesen beating Blackburn 48-44% among registered voters and 48-46% among likely voters.

Florida is the ultimate swing state. The PVI is R+2 and Trump did narrowly beat Hillary 4,617,886 (49% to 48.8%) but all the post-primary gubernatorial polls show progressive Democrat Andrew Gillum beating far right Trumpist Ron DeSantis. The most recent poll, by Quinnipiac shows Gillum leading 50% to 47%. Trump's negative popularity rating in the state is hurting DeSantis.

Texas is to the GOP what California is to the Democrats. But this year, Ted Cruz's Texas Senate seat is a "toss-up." The most recent poll, by Emerson, shows a dead-heat, well within the margin of error between Democrat Beto O'Rourke and Cruz, who TRump's budget director, Mick Mulvaney, says may be too unlikable to win.

But it isn't just how unlikable Cruz is. Of Texas' 36 congressional districts, 25 are held by Republicans. Of those 25, there are 11 in danger of flipping blue!

• TX-02, where Todd Litton (D) has a $407,675 to $100,252 cash advantage over Dan Crenshaw (R)
• TX-06 , where Jana Lynne Sanchez (D has a $67,772- $25,157 cash advantage over Ron Wright (R)
• TX-07, where Democratic challenger Lizzie Fletcher has outraised GOP incumbent John Culberson $2,312,615 to $2,007,183
• TX-10, where progressive Mike Siegel may be on the verge of pulling off one of the cycle's biggest shocks by beating Michael McCaul
• TX-21, where Joseph Kopser (D) outraised Chip Roy (R) $1,550,139 to $934,789
• TX-23, where Gina Jones (D) is running neck and neck with Republican incumbent Will Hurd
• TX-31, where MJ Hegar has outraised incumbent John Carter $1,612,439 to $996,707
• TX-32, where Colin Allred has pulled ahead of Pete Sessions
• TX-36, where Dayna Steele is also on the verge of one of the cycle's biggest upsets by toppling Trumpist dentist Brian Babin.

Please consider helping turn win back Texas by clicking on this Blue America Texas thermometer and contributing what you can to Beto and the progressive Democrats running for congressional seats:

More Women In Congress Isn't Just A "Nice" Thing-- It's CRUCIAL For This Country's Success

Two of the most important Senate races this cycle pit women against each other. One of the Senate's most progressive Democrats, a courageous reformer with a fantastic voting record that spans a career as a state legislator, a congresswoman and more recently as a senator, Tammy Baldwin, is up against a conservative Republican, Leah Vukmir, in Wisconsin. My lens on this race frames an outspoken progressive against a Trump-enabling reactionary. The woman-thing is removed as an identity politics factor. Another identity politics factor may or may not be in play: Tammy has always been upfront about being a lesbian.

Over in Arizona, there are also two women competing, both congressmembers looking to ascend to the Senate. Kyrsten Sinema is running as a Democrat, although she votes more with the Republicans than anyone would ever expect from a Democrat. She is the head of the Blue Dogs and has the single worst voting record of any Democrat in the House. You think Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly and Heidi Heitkamp are bad? Just wait 'til this monstrosity is in the Senate. Her opponent, a mainstream conservative Republican, Martha McSally, is worse. Again the identity politics factor is removed and again there's a wiggle here because Sinema self-identifies as LGBT.

Without the "women thing" as a determinant for identity politics voters, it might make for a race where voting records-- readily available-- become more meaningful than anatomy, not a bad thing. The Senate needs more women members and I didn't pick the word "needs" randomly. I want to tell you why I chose that word. At worked at a company a long time ago where senior management would meet once a week for house and hours and hours. There were no women-- and eventually there was one woman-- and it was, among other things, dysfunctional and not in the best interests of the company. Forget about anything like "fairness" for a moment. Senior management of a company cannot make good decisions-- CANNOT-- without diversity. Without diversity you fail-- that simple. This is not a "bleeding heart" observation. Quite the contrary. There have been lots of studies that have shown how important diversity is in decision making. Companies need to take it serious and eventually mine did, which gave them an enormous advantage of our competitors who were more male-dominated. This Forbes article from last year, New Research: Diversity + Inclusion = Better Decision Making At Work, explains that "inclusive teams make better business decisions up to 87% of the time" and why "decisions made and executed by diverse teams delivered 60% better results." Believe me, that isn't just true in business.

This week, NBC reported that 100 women may be elected to the House in November-- with a very disturbing caveat: "the wave is being driven entirely by Democrats; on the GOP side, the number of women serving in office is expected to dip.

Keep in mind that there are plenty of woman v women races in the House, just like the two I mentioned in the Senate above. In Washington state, for example, an outstanding progressive leader, Lisa Brown, is facing off against a Trump/Ryan puppet in Spokane, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the top-ranked woman in the GOP leadership. (Her Trump affinity rating is a startling 97.8% of the time!)

NBC makes the point that if the 100 women are elected in the House, it will "put more new women in the House than in any prior election." That's a positive good for many reasons-- but especially for the country.

Between 30 and 40 new women are poised to enter the House next January, shattering the previous record of 24 set in 1992's "Year of the Woman." And much as pundits interpreted 1992's wave as a backlash against Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation, 2018 is now clearly a backlash to President Donald Trump's election.

Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton didn't just launch the Women's March; it set off an avalanche of Democratic women running for Congress, many of them first-time candidates, ranging from former Navy helicopter pilots to former CIA officers. Of the 254 non-incumbent Democratic nominees for the House, an unheard-of 50 percent are women, compared to 18 percent of Republicans.

Currently, there are 61 female Democrats and 23 female Republicans serving in the House. But after November, Democrats could expand their ranks of women by more than a third. Meanwhile, the GOP's ranks could shrink by up to a third.

Democratic primary voters have made clear they feel the best way to send a message to Trump is to send a woman to Congress: In Democratic House primaries featuring at least one man, one woman and no incumbent on the ballot, a female candidate has won 69 percent of the time. In the same situations on the GOP side, a female candidate has won just 35 percent of the time.

Keep in mind, not every woman candidate is any good. Some are more like Kyrtsen Sinema than like Tammy Baldwin, BUT... in races that pit women against Republicans? There's no contest. Even the worst, most reactionary female Democrats running for House seats-- say, Kathy Manning in North Carolina, Gretchen Driskell in Michigan, Ann Kirkpatrick in Arizona, Elaine Luria in Virginia-- are absolutely better choices than their Republican opponents (male or female).

Let me go back to the Senate races for one second, actually just this one in Tennessee which pits a woman against a man. The man is a fairly conservative, though not dogmatic, former governor, Phil Bredesen (D). The woman is an extreme right fanatic, very dogmatic, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R). She's currently one of the worst members on Congress-- absolutely dreadful by every possible metric. On top of that, she's one of Trump's top picks for the Senate anywhere in the country and is running a campaign that explicitly vows to protect him from impeachment. You going to vote for the woman candidate against the male in this instance?

Tennessee Shows That GOP Zombies Won't Vote For Anyone Unless Trump Explicitly Endorses

These 2 probably hurt Black's chances

According to the Trump Affinity tracker House Budget Committee chair and far right extremist Diane Black (R-TN) scores a 93.2%. The times she didn't vote with Trump it because she supported a position that was more right-wing and more extreme than his, like when she opposed raising the debt limit to extend government funding for victims of Hurricane Harvey last year. She's real monster. And Thursday, her bid for the Republican gubernatorial nomination tanked. She had started as the clear front-runner... and came in third. Of Tennessee's 95 counties, she only won 2, solidly Democratic Shelby County (Memphis) by a handful of votes, and tiny Stewart County. She didn't even win Knox County, where she's from or any of the counties she represents in Congress!

• Bill Lee- 289,699 (36.7%)
• Randy Boyd- 191,940 (24.3%)
• Diane Black- 181,719 (23.0%)
• Beth Harwell- 120,910 (15.3%)

Most of the media spin Friday morning was how Black was the 5th House Republican this year vying for higher office who lost. Fair enough. Black was a special case though. She's incredibly extreme with a 1.23 career long crucial vote score-- that's 1.23 out of 100-- which was the worst of any of anyone from Tennessee. Almost all of her TV ads tied her to Trump, but Trump, who has said publicly that he likes, refused to endorse her. Pence endorsed her but in the Party of Trump, Pence's endorsement means squat. She went front front-runner to loser as it became clear Trump wasn't going to back her. Two businessmen from outside political circles drew in more votes than she did. The primary winner, former plumbing executive Bill Lee will face off against Democrat former Nashville mayor Karl Dean in November.

Black ran loads of negative ads while Lee's messaging was all positive. Voters learned to dislike her fairly quickly. Multimillionaires, Black and Boyd self-financed their campaigns-- Black with $12,200,000 and Boyd with $19,400,000. Lee spent $5,200,000 of his own. Democrat Karl Dean also contributed $1.4 million of his own. He won a landslide victory over the more progressive House Minority Leader Craig Fitzhugh, 279,324 (75.1%) to 72,263 (19.4%).

In the Senate primaries, both former Governor Phil Bredesen and another congressional right-wing extremist, Marsha Blackburn, coasted to easy victories, each winning all 95 counties in the state. 723, 114 Republicans voted and just 380,651 Democrats participated. The average of all current polls show Bredesen beating Blackburn by 4.5 points. But Next week Republican superPACs will begin a multimillion dollar TV smear campaign against him. Trump has already endorsed Blackburn and is expected to campaign for her again, calling Bredesen "very liberal," although he is actually very conservative.


Strange that Trump can't get his rabid supporters to buy his daughter's crappy clothing line-- even when the junk is on deep, deep discount. This one started at an overly ambitious $64, quickly went down to $39.99 and is now available for $1.00. Alas, no takers. It still may be too high. Perhaps they should take the two labels off it. Or maybe she should give up on fine garments and try selling a line of MAGA chewing tobacco instead.

Will Congressional Republicans Suffer From Trump's Disastrous And Pig-Headed Trade Policies?

In the last post, we looked at how Republican chances to hold onto Congress continue to collapse, largely because of who leads their party. That post was about his failures in regard to Russia. But the trade war he's provoked might be much worse for the GOP. Politico reporter Megan Cassella pointed out the bad timing of his trade policies and how they will be impacting consumers as they head to the polls. "Market analysts, industry experts and economists warn," she wrote, "the economic fallout of the president’s tariffs could peak around election time."

A few weeks ago we focussed in on how Trump is inadvertently helping Democrat Phil Bredensen win the open Tennessee Senate seat and how his trade war could change Iowa's House make up from 3 Republicans and one Democrat to 4 Democrats.



Cassella posits that "Trump's trade wars could become a major political drag for Republicans, with job losses and price increases piling up just as voters head to the polls in November. Trump jolted markets once again early Friday when he said he’s prepared to impose penalties on some $500 billion in Chinese goods regardless of the consequences that might ensue, economic or political."

[M]arket analysts, industry experts and economists warn that the economic fallout of the president’s tariffs-- those that are already in effect and those he’s threatening to impose-- is only going to intensify over the coming months and could reach a peak around election time.

“We’re already hearing complaints now from companies, so by the time we get to the midterms, you’re going to be hearing governors, mayors, Congress complaining about jobs, about cost increases, about problems,” Carlos Gutierrez, the former Commerce secretary under President George W. Bush, told POLITICO. “The question is: Will that be strong enough to offset the idea that we have to get tough on our trading partners, and that our jobs are being stolen overseas?”

It takes months for most consumers to feel the impact of tariffs, but as the fall approaches, everything from groceries to appliances could start to cost more at major retailers across the country. Democrats could use these price increases as a political cudgel against Republicans in swing districts as they try to take back control of Congress.

Trump has so far suffered little political blowback for his tariffs and trade threats, saying that he is simply following through on promises he made during the campaign to crack down on trading partners, even close allies, and put America first. Since March, he has imposed blanket tariffs on nearly all imports of steel and aluminum and placed penalties on $34 billion in goods from China, a total likely to increase to $50 billion next month and into the hundreds of billions later this year.

In return, countries have retaliated with tit-for-tat duties on everything from U.S. agricultural goods to Kentucky bourbon and Harley-Davidson motorcycles, aiming to sway top Republican lawmakers by hurting constituents in their districts.

But Trump and his party could soon begin to face consequences as companies in the coming months start reporting lower earnings, reassessing their supply chains and holding back on investment, all of which will begin to ripple throughout the economy and could lead to a slowdown or full-blown recession, experts say.

If all of the tariffs that have been proposed take effect, they would bring down long-run U.S. GDP by 0.47 percent-- about $118 billion-- in the long term and cost more than 364,000 jobs, a new analysis from the Tax Foundation shows. The International Monetary Fund also warned this week that trade tensions could cut global output by some $400 billion by 2020, and that the U.S. is "especially vulnerable" to effects of an international slowdown.

Price increases would vary by product, ranging anywhere from a few cents on a can of beer or soup to around $6,000 on a family car, if the administration moves forward with auto-specific tariffs it has threatened.

Even if Trump doesn't move forward with any additional duties, the uncertainty caused by his policies and rhetoric is leading some companies to begin pulling back investments in research and development. They're afraid that if they develop products for foreign markets, those markets might no longer be accessible to them in six months or a year.

The agricultural industry has been particularly vulnerable: Countries like Mexico have begun to diversify their import markets by buying more corn and soybeans from Brazil instead of the United States, in an attempt to reduce their dependence on a country that could erect new trade barriers at any time based on the president’s whims.

How's this going to go over in swing districts in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky...?



Trump is playing game of chicken with President Xi Jinping of China. Xi knows exactly what's happening here in November and he's not likely to give Trump a way out of the mess he's created. Political leaders in the EU, Canada and Mexico all hate Trump and are all eager to see him take a big fall. So... unless Trump can suddenly made some kind of deal with a couple of small fascist governments like Hungary, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines, Republicans in Congress are going to increasingly get blamed for being Trump enablers.

This kind of research by PEW (below) shows that Trump-- in swing districts like Mimi Walters (R-CA), Bruce Poliquin (R-ME), Don Bacon (R-NE), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Andy Barr (R-KY), Jeff Sessions (R-TX), Dave Brat (R-VA), Mia Love (R-UT), Erik Paulsen (R-MN), Pete Roskam (R-IL), every New Jersey Republican, Steve King (R-IA) and dozens more-- will be an albatross around the necks of House candidates perceived as rubber stamps, enough to swing elections towards Democrats.

What's Worse For The Republicans-- Trump's Russian Adventure Or His Trade War Against China?

Trumpanzee is furious about his DNI's interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC. Washington Post reporters say that Trump enablers "were in an uproar" over the optics of Dan Coats' making a laughing stock out of a fake president who was in way, way over his head in his dealings with Putin. I assume he'll be even more angry if someone reads the Will Hurd (R-TX) OpEd in the New York Times, Trump Is Being Manipulated By Putin. What Should We Do? to him. "Over the course of my career as an undercover officer in the C.I.A., I saw Russian intelligence manipulate many people. I never thought I would see the day when an American president would be one of them... By playing into Vladimir Putin’s hands the leader of the free world actively participated in a Russian disinformation campaign that legitimized Russian denial and weakened the credibility of the United States to both our friends and foes abroad... Over the course of my career as an undercover officer in the C.I.A., I saw Russian intelligence manipulate many people. I never thought I would see the day when an American president would be one of them."

And a good old slap in the face for Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy and Paul Ryan who are protecting Trump and his treasonous behavior: "As a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I strongly believe in the importance of Congress's oversight responsibilities and will work with my colleagues to ensure that the administration is taking the Russian threat seriously. Without action, we risk losing further credibility in international negotiations with both our friends and foes on critical trade deals, military alliances and nuclear arms."

And then there was the cover of today's Politicom an essay by Blake Hounshell, Why I'm No Longer A RussiaGate Skeptic. He now says that when he wrote back in February, that he was skeptical that Señor Trumpanzee would ever be proved to have secretly colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election in his favor, he mistyped. "What I meant to write was that I wasn’t skeptical. Last week’s events have nullified my previous skepticism."

Politically speaking, Trump’s devotion to his pro-Putin line doesn’t make sense. Yes, the GOP base is impressionable, and perhaps Republican voters would accept it if Trump came out and said, “You bet, Russia helped get me elected, and wasn’t that a good thing? We couldn’t let Crooked Hillary win!” But nobody would say his odd solicitousness toward the Kremlin leader is a political winner, and it certainly causes an unnecessary amount of friction with Republicans in Congress. He’s kept it up at great political cost to himself, and that suggests either that he is possessed by an anomalous level of conviction on this one issue, despite his extraordinary malleability on everything else-- or that he’s beholden to Putin in some way.

You don’t have to buy Jonathan Chait’s sleeper agent theory of Trump to believe that something is deeply weird about all this. Nor do you need to be convinced that Putin is hanging onto a recording of something untoward that may have taken place in a certain Moscow hotel room. You don’t even have to buy the theory that Trump’s business is overly dependent on illicit flows of Russia money, giving Putin leverage. As Julia Ioffe posits, the kompromat could well be the mere fact of the Russian election meddling itself.

...We might never get clear evidence that Trump made a secret deal with the Kremlin. It would be great to see his tax returns, and perhaps Mueller has evidence of private collusion that we have yet to see. These details matter. But in a larger sense, everything we need to know about Trump’s strange relationship with Russia is already out in the open. As The Donald himself might say, there’s something going on.

If Trump is indeed a tool of Putin, what might we expect him to do next? Well, I wouldn’t be sleeping too soundly in Kiev, Podgorica or Riga right now. If the Kremlin tests America’s wobbling commitment to NATO, watch how Trump responds. And pay attention, too, to what the White House says about Russia’s absurd demand that the U.S. hand over former ambassador to Moscow Mike McFaul—Wednesday’s spectacle of Sarah Huckabee Sanders refusing to immediately rule out the idea flies in the face of decades of American diplomacy. Trump may have grudgingly admitted that Russia did the deed, but nobody should be surprised if he starts shedding doubt on it all over again. Maybe, just maybe, he can’t admit that Moscow tried to put him in the Oval Office because he’s under strict instructions not to.

Meanwhile Señor T may be trying to distract from Putin-Gate by ramping up his trade war with China. He's now threatening to put tariffs on every Chinese good imported to the U.S. That's $505.5 billion worth. Caitlin Owens at Axios this morning: "Trump's tariffs are introducing a new, wildly unpredictable issue into the midterm elections, thanks to their heavy impact on states with critical Senate races as well as their likely role in House races across the country. This puts GOP candidates in a weird position: Speaking out against trade policy that's hurting their state or district could turn off voters who would view that as criticizing Trump." Democrats have a good issue:



And this is kind of funny:

• Trump flags and hats made in China are reportedly being held up at US customs amid an intensifying trade war.
• Chinese textile suppliers have said delays at US customs is affecting their sales.
• Chinese suppliers across China have reported making merchandise for Trump's 2020 bid, although campaign officials insist all their official merchandise is manufactured in the US.

Where do they make the t-shirts though?