Sunday, April 12, 2020

Orange County, This Coming November

>

Katie Porter-- a leader

There are some good politicians trying to do a good job through this. And then there are the nightmares like Trump and the Trumpists. Like Trump, governor Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), Kristi Noem (R-SD), Kevin Stitt (R-OK) and, especially, Ron DeSantis (R-FL) make everybody else look relatively good. There's a general consensus that DeSantis is the worst governor in the country, at least in terms of doing the most harm to the most people. Like Trump, who consistently-- even arrogantly-- ignored all warnings, DeSantis, reported the NY Times, helped infect the whole country due entirely to his political cowardice.
Weeks before Florida ordered people to stay at home, the coronavirus was well into its insidious spread in the state, infecting residents and visitors who days earlier had danced at beach parties and reveled in theme parks. Only now, as people have gotten sick and recovered from-- or succumbed to-- Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, has the costly toll of keeping Florida open during the spring break season started to become apparent.

Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has blamed travelers from New York, Europe and other places for seeding the virus in the state. But the reverse was also true: People got sick in Florida and took the infection back home.

The exact number of people who returned from leisure trips to Florida with the coronavirus may never be known. Cases as far away as California and Massachusetts have been linked to the Winter Party Festival, a beachside dance party and fund-raiser for the L.G.B.T.Q. community held March 4-10. Another California man died after going to Orlando for a conference and then to a packed Disney World. Two people went to Disney and later got relatives sick in Florida and Georgia.

Slow action by Florida’s governor left local leaders scrambling to make their own closure decisions during one of the busiest and most profitable times of the year for a state with an $86 billion tourism economy. The result was that rules were often in conflict, with one city canceling a major event while a neighboring city allowed another event to continue.
DeSantis finally took action on April 1-- a full month too late. Florida has over 18,500 confirmed cases and nearly 500 deaths, with the epidemic still expanding in the state. Tectonix, a data analytics and visualization firm showed how cellphones that were on one Fort Lauderdale beach at the beginning of March spread across the country-- up the Eastern Seaboard and further West-- over the next two weeks. DeSantis is literally, along with Trump, the Typhoid Mary of this pandemic.

The Orange County in the headline, though, is not Orange County the Orlando, Florida Orange County-- which luckily for the people who live there, started moving in the right direction before DeSantis did. I have the other big Orange County in mind-- southern California's.

Orange County was once the heartland of the Republican Party-- long before Texas or the rest of the Deep South could be counted on. America can thank Orange County for the Nixon and Reagan presidencies. And then Trump happened. In 2016, primary day looked like this:
Trump- 146,888
Hillary- 123,723
Bernie- 100,836
Kasich- 21,285
Cruz- 16,844
In November, Hillary beat Trump county-wide-- 556,544 (51.0%) to 472,669 (43.3%). That was the first time Orange County went for a Democrat since 1936-- FDR's first reelection. In 2012 Romney beat Obama 541,592 (53.0%) to 457,077 (44.8%). That was quite a turn-around! And 2 years later, in the 2018 midterms, all 4 Orange County red districts-- each of which Romney had won-- flipped blue.
CA-39 (even PVI):

Gil Cisneros (New Dem/"ex"-GOP)- 126,002 (51.6%)
Young Kim (R)- 118,391 (48.4%)
[Cisneros narrowly lost the Orange County part of the district but made up for it by winning way ahead in the Los Angeles part of the district.]

CA-45 (R+3):

Katie Porter (D)- 158,906 (52.1%)
Mimi Waters (R)- 146,383 (47.9%)

CA-48 (R+4):

Harley Rouda (New Dem/"ex"-GOP)-157,837 (53.6%)
Dana Rohrabacher (R)- 136,899 (46.4%)

CA-49 (R+1):

Mike Levin (D)- 166,453 (56.4%)
Diane Harkey (R)- 128,577 (43.6%)
[Levin lost the Orange Co. part of the district but cleaned up in the San Diego part.]
Last week Kyle Konik from Sabato's Crystal Ball took a look at the California general election races and changed the rating towards the GOP in 3 of them, declaring incumbents Devin Nunes and Tom McClinton (neither with a strong opponent) as "safe" from likely Republican, and putting the open Katie Hill seat (CA-25) from "leans" Dem to "toss-up."

I'm not going to get into those races here, although I do want to mention that the voters registration plus Trump on the top of the ticket should make the district relatively safe for a Democrat, despite the fact that the Democratic establishment picked an unimaginably bad candidate who will inspire absolutely no one but her friends and whoever happens to like corporate Democrats from the Republican wing of the party and who stand for nothing at all and have nothing to offer other than a "D" next to their name-- a "D" than will turn into an "F" score once she starts voting.

This is how they rate the reelection chances of the 4 Orange County Democratic incumbents we mentioned above:
Cisneros- CA-39 leans D
Porter- CA-45- likely D
Rouda- CA-48- leans D
Levin- CA-49- safe D
In explaining why the ratings fall this way Kondik uses irrelevant pundit-speak bullshit like this: "Republicans have never won a district where they won less than 50% of the two-party primary voting." What he doesn't do is take into account the jobs the incumbents have been doing. Cisneros and Rouda, the two conservative "ex"-Republicans, are just sitting and doing nothing at all but calling campaign contributors and asking for money. Each is a complete waste of a seat, back-benchers with nothing at all to offer anyone. Contrast that with Levin, who has a relatively decent voting record and an interest in several important policies. Or, better yet, contrast Rouda's and Cisneros' inertness with Katie Porter's activism and brilliance. She is widely considered one of the most worthwhile and accomplished freshmen from the 2018 class. Her constituents-- not the hardcore Trumpists of course, but everyone else-- have come to love her and respect her. Voters in Irvine, Tustin, Villa Park, Mission Viejo, Laguna Woods, Rancho Santa Margarita, Anaheim Hills and Lake Forest have something the others don't-- a member of Congress to actually be proud of.

As of the February 12 FEC filing deadline, Katie had raised $3,825,561, 29.79% from small grassroots donors. The three other OC freshmen:
Rouda- $2,339,456 (8.91%)
Levin $2,046,561 (12.68%)
Cisneros- $1,415,849 (9.04%)
Cisneros and Rouda may sit on the phone all day asking rich people and PAC executives for money, but by primarily doing an outstanding job, Porter has raised more (combined) and has raised gigantically more from small donors who appear to appreciate what she is doing for them, their families and the country. This isn't the kind of information that pundits use in their always-wrong ratings.

Mike Levin has two twitter accounts, one with 111,600 followers and one with 15,100 followers. Harley Rouda has two twitter accounts as well, one with 77,300 followers and one with 14,000 followers. Gil Cisneros also has two twitter accounts, one with 15,800 followers and one with 9,248 followers. So all together 243,048 followers between the 3 of them. And Katie? One account with 204,200 and one with 442,000-- a total of 642,200. Maybe an indication someone gives a damn about what she's doing in Congress?

Below is the third most-viewed Katie Porter YouTube clip-- with 843,000 views. There are 2 clips with over a million views each and 8 with over half a million. None are ads or about election campaigns. Harley Rouda has 3 videos with over 100,000 views-- all paid campaign ads. Almost all of his YouTubes are campaign clips and not many people have watched any of them. Cisneros-- the self-funding lottery winner-- is even worse, with no YouTubes more than just a handful of people have watched and, like Rouda, almost all just about campaigning.





Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Congress Needs More Members In The Squad But That Isn't The Only Way To Make A Valuable Contribution: Katie Porter

>




The CNN.com headline yesterday, Katie Porter isn't part of 'The Squad.' But the freshman House Democrat is stirring up trouble for Trump, was... meh. True, Katie Porter isn't part of The Squad. And true, Katie is "stirring up trouble for Trump." But... there's a lot more to it. Each member of The Squad can boast a ProgressivePunch crucial vote record of "A"-- three of them, perfect 100% scores, in fact. Katie's ProgressivePunch crucial vote score isn't as robust. And instead of their A, hers is F. Here are their raw scores plus the PVI of their districts:
Ayanna Pressley- 100 (D+34)
Rashida Tlaib- 100 (D+33)
AOC- 100 (D+29)
Ilhan Omar- 97.50 (D+26)
Katie Porter- 72.50 (R+3)
Let's put that another way. Republicans didn't bother running candidates against Ayanna or Rashida. AOC beat Republican Anthony Pappas 110,318 (78.2%) to 19,202 (13.6%). Ilhan beat Republican Jennifer Zielinski 267,703 (78.0%) to 74,440 (21.7%). Katie had a more series problem. She ran against entrenched Republican incumbent Mimi Walters (after beating a DCCC-preferred New Dem in the primary). Walters spent $5,244,605 (+ $7,758,258 town in against Porter by Republican outside groups). In the end-- Porter managed to beat Walters 158,906 (52.1%) to 146,383 (47.9%). Trump did badly in all 5 districts-- 11.9% in Ayanna's, 18.1% in Rashida's, 18.5% in Ilhan's, 19.8% in AOC's... and 44.4% in Katie's. I'm not making an excuses for her voting record, but it's a lot easier to vote straight down the line progressive in a district where only 12% of the people back Trump that in one where 44% do.

On the other hand, few freshmen have been as valuable in their committees as Porter has been in the House Financial Services Committee, where she has used her expertise to hold banksters' and Trump appointed regulators' feet to the fire. And, as Katie Lobosco, the CNN.com reporter put it, "she's emerged as a viral star when it comes to how banks and the government treat the working poor and puncturing Trump's claims about the economy. She's carving out a Warren-esque role for herself that's included asking top officials do basic math under oath. Her targets so far have included major Wall Street players like JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, Equifax CEO Mark Begor and now-former Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan."
It was March when Porter grilled Sloan-- who was already facing calls from Warren and others to step down-- at a House Financial Services Committee hearing about Wells Fargo's numerous scandals over fake accounts, inappropriate mortgage fees, and charging borrowers for auto insurance they didn't need.

When it came her turn, Porter began by asking why the public should trust Sloan's promises that Wells Fargo was changing its ways. Then, she ducked under the table to bring up a poster board printed with huge text, displaying what Wells Fargo attorneys had said in court.

"Why Mr. Sloan, if you don't mind me asking, are your lawyers in federal court arguing that those exact statements I read are quote 'paradigmatic examples of non-actionable corporate puffery, on which no reliable investor could rely,'" she asked.

"I don't know why our lawyers are arguing that," Sloan responded.

Porter kept going.

"It's convenient for your lawyers to deflect blame in court, and say your rebranding campaign can be ignored as hyperbolic marketing, but when then you come to Congress, you want us to take you at your word," she said. "And I think that's the disconnect, that's why the American public has trouble trusting Wells Fargo."

Two weeks later, Wells Fargo announced Sloan was out.

Porter has targeted top Trump administration officials, too. She whipped out a copy of the text book she wrote, "Modern Consumer Law," to quiz Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief Kathy Kraninger. She then posed a hypothetical math problem: A single mom takes out a two-week $200 payday loan with an origination fee of $20, at a rate of 10%. What is the APR? One of Porter's aides handed Kraninger a calculator.

She didn't do the math, even after Porter repeated the question, asking her to ballpark the calculation.

"I understand where you're getting. At the end of the day, the issue is certainly: When you actually are able to repay that loan and whether or not you take out an additional loan," Kraninger said.

"This is not a math exercise, though. This is a policy conversation," she added.

This week, in her office, Porter said she hopes the video clip gets people thinking about the issue.

"Like, what does it mean that calculating the APR is so hard that the vast majority of us can't do it? I guess it means that those disclosures that do it for you are pretty useful," she said.

In June, Porter asked Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson why the Federal Housing Administration is "lousy at servicing mortgages." When Carson said he had not had any discussions about that issue but that he would "look it up," Porter pushed further, asking him to explain the rate of foreclosures among those with mortgages backed by his department. She used the term REO-- which stands for real estate-owned, and refers to properties owned by a lender after an unsuccessful foreclosure-- an acronym she didn't expect to stump the head of the agency tasked with monitoring them.

"Do you know what an REO is?" Porter asked Carson.

Carson replied, "An Oreo?"

"No, not an Oreo," Porter said. "An R-E-O. REO."




Video of the exchange went viral and Carson attempted to laugh it off by sending the Congresswoman a box of the cookies.

Porter says her goal isn't to highlight incompetence, but instead to make esoteric topics more accessible-- like she did in the consumer finance law classes she taught at the University of California, Irvine.

"What I did as a professor is not that different than what I do in hearings," Porter said this week.

An average voter might not be able to articulate their position on payday loans, she said, "but when you start talking about that hypothetical exchange I had with Kraninger, people began to engage."

Like Warren, she believes that debates about protecting the ability to make a living, buy a home, and afford college are really conversations about the "heart and soul of America."

Her back-and-forth with Dimon, she said, was meant to highlight the issue of CEO pay disparity. Porter ran through a hypothetical Chase bank employee's budget, this time with a white board.

"She's short $567, what would you suggest she do?" asked the bank CEO.

"I don't know, I'd have to think about that," Dimon said.

Whether or not the professor-turned-congresswoman can turn her unique way of questioning government officials and Wall Street executives into making real legislative change remains to be seen. A bicameral bill she brought forth with Democratic Sens. Warren, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Tom Udall of New Mexico would bolster the power of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau so that it could oversee student loan servicers. Porter has also introduced legislation with Harris that would strengthen the power of state attorneys general to monitor banks.

So far none of these bills have major support from Republicans. But a bill she introduced that would raise the civil penalties assessed to security law violators was marked up by committee last week and a similar Senate bill is cosponsored by Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley. Two of her other bills-- one on mental health and the other addressing homecare for seniors-- have some support from across the aisle.

The Democrat could be vulnerable in her reelection bid. When she won in 2018, it was the first time her Southern California district had gone blue since its creation in 1983. That was in part because two-term incumbent Republican Mimi Walters was consistently voting in line with Trump in a district Clinton won by five percentage points.

But last month, Porter became one of the first Democrats who won Republican districts in 2018 to come out in support of impeaching Trump. The move seemed to win her some support. Her campaign brought in more than $1 million in the second quarter, out-fundraising many other vulnerable Democrats.

Porter said she is working to be a voice for families concerned about how they're going to pay the bills, something she believes Trump's candidacy also tapped into.

"The financial instability and sometimes insecurity that families feel, deeply motivates how they respond politically," Porter said last week.

"I think one thing he (Trump) played into was fear about 'Am I going to be able to make ends meet, and is there going be a job for my kids?' Those are real concerns, and as a mom I have them, too."
So far Katie has half a dozen GOP opponents running against her in the open primary, alphabetically Deputy District Attorney Ray Gennawey, Yorba Linda City Councilor and Deputy Attorney General Peggy Huang, random person Julie Proctor, Mission Viejo City Councilman Greg Raths, Laguna Hills City Councilman Don Sedgwick, Orange County Board of Education Member Lisa Sparks ad a second random person, Brenton Woolworth. And some of them are raising real money:
Don Sedgwick: $621,120
Peggy Huang (self-funder)- $263,791
Greg Raths (self funder)- $209,770
Lisa Sparks Triggers- $151,251
Ray Gennawey- $73,210
Brenton Woolworth- $8,845
But, speaking of The Squad, with the Republican Party having nothing to run on, they've decided to take their racism and xenophobia and turn it into an issue, an issue that shows the public exactly who and what they are. This is from the Illinois Republican Party. I have a feeling the California GOP is going to back away from using it, but... who really knows for sure. It looks like the kind of thing that Don Sedgwick and Greg Rath would absolutely love.



Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, July 06, 2019

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

>





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

Once Porter beat their preferred candidate, the DCCC was slow to get behind her-- and when they did...not so much (around $3,000,000, much at the end after it became apparent she was going to win)... and certainly not in the way that they spent to support the reactionary Blue Dogs and New Dems they spent almost all their money on. When they really back a candidate, no one doubts it. These were the top 5 DCCC/House Majority PAC candidates for 2018-- all New Dems and Blue Dogs:
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)- $7,284,383
Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- $5,952,363
Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- $5,281,775
Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)- $4,833,334
Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- $4,803,412
Still, Katie won in a much tougher district than most DCCC targets-- 158,906 (52.1%) to 146,383 (47.9%). CA-45 (southern and central Orange County) had a PVI of R+3. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell's district is a D+6, Kim Schrier's and Josh Harder's are even, Susie Lee's is R+3 and just Brindisi's is a tough one (R+6). So why bring this up now? Status Quo Joe was on CNN with Chris Cuomo yesterday regurgitating deceitful DCCC talking points about how progressives, like Katie Porter, can't win in swing districts. The disgusting asshole and congenital liar Biden: "Guess what, look who won the races. Look who won last time out... Mainstream Democrats who are very progressive on social issues and very strong on education and healthcare."





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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

#3 In Our Series About The Freshmen: What About Katie Porter?

>




Last cycle, the NRCC was so certain that they would hold CA-45 in Orange County that they didn't even bother putting incumbent Mimi Walters into their Patriot Program for vulnerable House members. That may have been a mistake. The district, which went into the race with a PVI of R+3, had given Romney a 55-43% win over Obama but gave Hillary 49% to Trump's 44%. With a $92,378 median income, it's the 13th richest congressional district in the country. Ethnically, it's 53.2% White, 22.4% Asian. 18.7% Latino and 1.7% Black. It seemed safer than any of the other Orange County districts. The GOP hadn't really thought that every one of them would get caught up in the anti-red/anti-Trump 2018 wave. But they did. Walters lost to first-time candidate Katie Porter:



Porter's campaign was largely based on her promise to "to hold Donald Trump and the powerful special interests in Washington accountable on behalf of Orange County families" and her pledge to support Medicare-For-All. She has signed on as an original co-sponsor of Pramila Jayapal's new-and-improved Medicare-For-All Act and her work in the House Financial Services Committee holding the Wall Street special interests' feet to the fire has become her trademark already.

Katie was backed by Blue America and we were a little nonplused when her voting record quickly started diverging from progressives. Even now, her ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is nothing to write home about-- a "D," tied with 5 New Dems, like Susie Lee, Chrissy Houlahan and Dean Phillips. An endorsement committee of a board I'm on asked me what was wrong and if we should consider not re-endorsing her. My advise based on two things-- 1- that she is doing incredible work in her committee and 2- that there are still too few votes to make a decision like that, even if we'd rather see her voting with AOC and Mike Levin (in the district next door) than like conservatives like Lee, Houlahan and Phillips. They have nothing going for them-- just the poor voting record-- while she is fulfilling her campaign promise to hold special interests accountable... and in a way few freshman members can match.

Blue America is still watching and waiting to see how her first year looks before we re-endorse. But the other board... I voted yes, to endorse again. I suspect Blue America will as well. She may need the help too. There are already 4 Republicans in the primary, Don Sedgwick, a Laguna Hills City Councilman, who has raised big money ($140,977), Ray Gennawey, Mission Viego Mayor Greg Raths and Yorba Linda City Councilwoman Peggy Huang. At one point, Mimi Walters said she would like a rematch and filed paper work with the FEC but she's been quiet and hasn't raised any money so far. Voter registration in CA-45 favors Republicans by about 5 points over Democrats.



She has roughed up congressional witnesses in her committee, like billionaire Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorganChase and Well Fargo CEO Tim Sloan, as well as the top dogs at Equifax and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She's already considered the best financial affairs interrogator in Congress. But aside from making a name for herself for nailing banksters' and Trump officials' hides to the wall-- watch the 3 videos on this page-- Porter has raised an impressive $416,122.85 for her reelection campaign.

When compulsive liar and Trumpist press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders asserted last week that congressional Democrats are not "smart enough" to review Trump’s tax returns, Porter went on CNN to respond and offered to "take that bet anytime... I’m trained in tax law. I’m a legal professor. I’m ready to take a look." Huckabee hasn't brought the taxes over for her to look at-- nor, apparently chastened-- has she responded in any other way.





Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, October 14, 2018

Paul Ryan Gives Up On 2 More Orange County Incumbents— Mimi And Dana Pushed Overboard

>


Maybe it’s too early to congratulation progressive Democrat Katie Porter and New Dem Harley Rouda, but yesterday’s L.A. Times reported that Mimi Walters (CA-45) and Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48) are no longer seen as viable candidates by Ryan’s shady, Adelson-funded SuperPAC. Both have been cut off and left on the side of the road to die, politically speaking. What the Times reported is that the omission of Rohrabacher and Walters from TV advertising by Ryan’s Congressional Leadership Fund “comes at a crucial inflection point in the midterm election when the two parties begin assessing their likely winners and losers.”

Walters and Rohrabacher join a dozen other Republican incumbents who have been left for dead like Barbara Comstock (VA), Mike Coffman (CO), Mike Bishop (MI), Kevin Yoder (KS), Rod Blum (IA)... This is especially odd and unexpected for Walters and Rohrabacher because just last week Ryan’s PAC spent $337,839 savaging Katie Porter and $324,105 smearing Harley Rouda.
Candidates in California, where more than half a dozen seats are being seriously contested, are at particular risk of being cut off financially because of the state’s exorbitant advertising costs. Money saved in the costly Los Angeles media market can be spread over several contests in other states that may be considered more winnable.

The Congressional Leadership Fund, which collects multi-million-dollar checks from the Republican Party’s biggest donors, says it is spending nearly $12 million on cable television ads in four House contests in Southern California.

On Friday, the super PAC launched an additional $5-million ad campaign on the main broadcast stations in Los Angeles, the nation’s second most expensive media market after New York.

But the fund’s opening broadcast ads support only two of the four Republican candidates in the Southland’s hardest-fought races: Rep. Steve Knight of Palmdale and Young Kim of Fullerton, relegating its Rohrabacher and Walters ads to cable channels with fewer viewers.

The fund is free to add Walters and Rohrabacher to its broadcast lineup later. But millions of Californians have already received their ballots by mail, so immediate advertising is crucial to the fate of the two lawmakers, who are each facing their most serious challenges ever.

Rohrabacher has served 15 terms in Congress and Walters is bidding to win her third term.

Their Democratic challengers are already spending heavily on broadcast television ads. Walters has aired some broadcast commercials too, but Rohrabacher has not.

Nationwide, Democratic candidates have raised far more money than Republicans. As a result, GOP candidates are counting on outside groups like the Congressional Leadership Fund to come to the rescue.

But those groups must pay as much as quadruple the rates that television stations are required by law to offer to candidates, so the Democratic dollars are buying far more ad time. And those dollars are expanding the political battlefield, pressuring Republican strategists to make hard decisions on where to commit precious resources and which candidates to let go.

“While most people talk constantly about whether [Democratic enthusiasm] will translate into turnout, it’s definitely translating into dollars,” said Rob Stutzman, a veteran Republican strategist in Sacramento. “Dollars aren’t decisive always, but it’s always a big advantage.

“When you’re these national committees and you’ve got problems in the suburbs of Dallas, Kansas City, Chicago, Philadelphia, you’ve got to start making decisions on where you can most effectively spend,” Stutzman said.

For Knight, facing a formidable fundraiser in Democratic challenger Katie Hill, the new boost from the Congressional Leadership Fund came as a big relief. “We’re happy to have the help,” Knight strategist Matt Rexroad said.

Kim, the other Republican getting broadcast ads from the fund, is battling Democrat Gil Cisneros to succeed Rep. Ed Royce of Fullerton.

A Rohrabacher spokesman did not return a call for comment.

Dave Gilliard, a strategist for Walters, warned against reading too much into the latest machinations.

“There’s a lot of head fakes and games of chicken that occur between various outside spending groups in all these congressional districts,” he said. “Everybody’s trying to head-fake the other side to get them to spend money where they don’t need it.”

A spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee said the GOP’s congressional campaign arm is now broadcasting a spot supporting Walters and attacking her challenger, Katie Porter.

But he declined to say whether the committee would step up its advertising in either Orange County district if the Congressional Leadership Fund keeps Rohrabacher and Walters limited to cable.
The DCCC is doing something very similar. Remember, triage is bi-partisan-- and always favors conservatives (because of who exactly makes the decisions).They sent out a toxic memo Friday urging institutional donors and the suckers who still contribute to them instead of giving directly to candidates to concentrate on the corrupt conservatives the DCCC is pushing and stop giving money to the progressive candidates whose campaigns the DCCC is trying to destroy. They specifically asked donors to earmark money for New Dem candidates who are way ahead, while cutting back on all candidates associated with Bernie and with the policies he espouses and which are popular with Democratic voters. It’s ironic because the only way the anti-Red wave could possible turn into a Blue Wave would be for the DCCC to embrace ideas like Medicare-For-All, free state colleges, $15 minimum wage, Job Guarantee and other progressive ideas. The DCCC and their bag of Republican-lite candidates would rather run on bullshit talking points and conservative policies like PayGo.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, October 04, 2018

The Midterm Field Has Expanded In California-- Thank Ted Lieu

>


L.A. Times this morning: "Republicans are at risk of a wipeout in California’s six most hotly contested congressional races, a new poll shows-- a result that could radically reshape the state’s political map, with major consequences nationally... The Democratic tide threatens to swamp congressional districts in Southern California’s suburbs that Republicans have controlled for decades. That would significantly boost Democrats’ chances of gaining the additional 23 seats they need to win a majority in the House."

The story behind the story, a story beyond the ken of the mass media. After years of abject DCCC failure, the members of the Democratic caucus in the House demanded reforms from Pelosi before agreeing to give her another term as leader. That was in 2016. Reluctantly, Pelosi agreed to giving up the right to pick the DCCC chair and she agreed to allow the election of six DCCC regional vice chairs.

Big victory for reformers, right? Bullshit! When it came time to vote, the only candidate running for DCCC chair was Pelosi's handpicked, bumbling incompetent, Ben Ray Luján. So he was elected. There were no contested battles for the DCCC vice chairmen jobs either. And that has turned out to be a complete disaster. More than half the candidates outside of the West Coast have told me they didn't know their region even had a regional vice chair. One vice chair told me he didn't know why he ran or what the job was and asked me to help him figure out what he was supposed to do. Two years on and he hasn't done a thing. Another resigned a couple of months after being elected and, despite promises from Luján and Pelosi that he would be replaced, there is still no regional vice chair for the Rocky Mountain states and Texas (one of the crucial battlegrounds of 2018, where the unsupervised DCCC staff has fucked up race after race). In the end, two regional vice chairs get a passing grade, Joe Kennedy (B) and Ted Lieu (A+). The rest have been abject, embarrassing failures.

And that brings us back to this morning's L.A. Times story. "With the Nov. 6 midterm election less than five weeks away," wrote David Lauter, "none of the Republicans in the state’s six most competitive races have a lead. The Democrats lead strongly in one race and narrowly in three others, and two are dead heats, the Berkeley IGS Poll shows. Reaction to President Trump appears to drive the results more than any specific issue and, in most cases, more than the individual candidates. 'Trump appears to be the main motivator for voters in these districts,' said Mark DiCamillo, the veteran pollster who directs the Berkeley IGS Poll. 'He’s the central figure.'" Yes, he has that right. Recall, Ted Lieu's comments here at DWT yesterday: "The 2018 midterm elections are primarily about one thing: Donald Trump. November will be a referendum on the job the President and his party are doing.  Americans express their support or displeasure with the governing party. During a time of relatively low unemployment it is unheard of for the party in power to be so despised. But this is where we are-- Trump’s numbers are under water in purple districts across the country. This tells me that Americans are anxious about other things besides the economy. They are concerned about Trump’s temperament and lack of basic decency, the instability he creates around the globe, and his assault on our democratic norms and institutions. Voters are smart. They know that Trump inherited a pretty darn good economy from Barack Obama; and yet what did he do with it? Did he increase workers wages with a big infrastructure package? Did he tackle the student debt crisis? Make healthcare more affordable? Pay down the national debt? Nope. He and his Republican enablers in Congress passed a hugely unpopular tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and continue to undermine the Affordable Care Act. So on top of issues with Trump’s character and temperament, these policies are also very unpopular (and don’t even get me started on Russia)."

Even if he was hampered by the usual DC-directed DCCC staffer-clowns stepping clumsily and ineptly all over recruitment efforts, Lieu has demonstrated how the DCCC could turn into an organization that actually helps elect Democrats-- instead of existing as a pocket-lining disaster that benefits only the Republican Party. Unlike his co-vice chairs, he has raised millions of dollars for his region's candidates, helped the West Coast candidates find their footings for their races and helped create the environment that journalists and pundits marvel over as they write about the West Coast races.
Trump is unpopular across most of the targeted districts-- four covering parts of Orange and San Diego counties, one in Los Angeles County and one centered on Modesto in the Central Valley. That’s especially true among college-educated white voters, whose alienation from the president has turned suburban districts across the country into risky territory for the GOP, and among Latinos and women.

The share of voters who approve of Trump serves as a ceiling for Republican candidates, with none able to surpass Trump’s level by more than a few percentage points. That’s a significant problem for Republicans; in five of the six districts, a majority of likely voters disapprove of the president’s performance in office.

In several districts, the president’s opponents appear more motivated to vote than his supporters, with self-identified liberals and registered Democrats more likely to say that they view this year’s election as more important than previous contests.

Strategies that the Republicans had hoped would bolster their campaigns and make up for the undertow from the president appear to have had limited effect, at best.

A ballot measure to repeal the recent increase in the state’s gas tax, which Republican operatives had hoped would spur turnout on their side, trails in each of the six highly competitive districts. Money for the repeal campaign has largely dried up as Republicans have diverted funds elsewhere.

A national effort by Republicans to portray untested Democratic candidates as unacceptably liberal appears also to have come up short in these California districts. Several Democratic newcomers have maintained favorable images with voters, the poll showed.

As a result of those factors, Republicans lag behind in two of the four congressional districts that cover most of Orange County, long the heartland of California conservatism. The other two contests are dead heats.

A longtime Republican incumbent, Rep. Steve Knight of Palmdale, is narrowly trailing in the only remaining L.A.-centered district the GOP holds.

Farther north, Republican Rep. Jeff Denham of Turlock, who has survived previous attempts by Democrats to oust him, is behind by a slim margin in his Central Valley race.

The poll’s findings in those districts are generally similar to other recent nonpartisan, publicly released surveys.

In addition to those six districts, the poll also surveyed the races in two Republican-held seats that have not been top Democratic targets but have attracted considerable attention.

Rep. Devin Nunes of Tulare, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has a 53%-45% lead in his race against Andrew Janz, a county prosecutor. Nunes’ role as a defender of Trump has opened a gusher of money for Janz, despite the district’s heavily Republican tilt.

But in another heavily Republican district, Rep. Duncan Hunter of Alpine has only a 49%-47% lead over Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar, a result well within the poll’s margin of error.

Let me butt in here for a moment. According to Janz, the DCCC has been unhelpful and even hostile to his efforts to replace Nunes. Lieu has gone out of his way to help Janz even though Luján and Pelosi have refused to even add him to their Red to Blue list. With Lieu's help he has raised more money than any of the DCCC-favored candidates. And Lieu includes him in all his joint candidate events and fund-raising efforts. The DCCC has also ignored-- and viciously undermined-- Ammar Campa-Najjar. Lieu? He's helping him raise money and, in fact, is hosting a major fundraising event for him (and Randy Bryce) in two weeks.
49th District




Democrats have their strongest shot in the 49th District, covering northern San Diego County and the southern Orange County coast up through Dana Point. Mike Levin, the Democrat, has a 55%-41% lead over Republican Diane Harkey, the poll shows. Republican Rep. Darrell Issa decided not to run for reelection in a district that Hillary Clinton carried by just more than 7 points in the 2016 presidential election.

White voters with college degrees make up 45% of the likely voters in this mostly affluent, suburban district, and they back Levin 60% to 35%. Latinos, who make up about 1 in 8 likely voters here, back him by about a 3-1 majority. While men are divided almost evenly between the two, women favor Levin 60% to 34%.

Perhaps most important, likely voters disapprove of how Trump is doing as president 61% to 39%, with more than half, 55%, saying they strongly disapprove. Democrats and liberals were significantly more likely than Republicans and conservatives to say that it was “very important” for them to cast a vote to show their position on Trump.

48th District




Next door to the north, the 48th District, which spans the rest of the Orange County coast from Laguna Niguel to Seal Beach and inland to Westminster and Fountain Valley, is a couple of clicks more conservative. Clinton carried the district by less than 2 percentage points.

There, longtime Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of Costa Mesa and his Democratic challenger, Harley Rouda, are in a dead heat, each with 48%. Voters also split almost evenly on whether they approve of Trump.


As in the 49th District, college-educated white voters and Latinos back the Democrat, but they make up a slightly smaller share of the electorate: 39% of likely voters in the 48th District are whites with college degrees, and about 1 in 10 are Latino, the poll found.

Rohrabacher also benefits from significant support among Asian Americans, who make up about 1 in 8 of the likely voters. Elsewhere in California, Asian Americans lean heavily toward the Democrats, but this district includes a large, conservative Vietnamese population. Asian American voters overall divide almost equally between Rohrabacher and Rouda, the poll found.

Among whites without a college degree-- the heart of Trump’s voting base-- Rohrabacher leads by nearly 20 points, 58% to 39%, almost twice the size of the Republican’s margin with that group in the 49th District. Women support the Democrat, but men back the Republican by an almost equal margin.

The more Trump-oriented conservatism of the 48th District also surfaces when voters said what issues they care about most. Among Republicans in the 49th District, taxes were the top issue; in the 48th, it was “securing the nation’s borders.”

As the two sides vie to break the Rohrabacher-Rouda tie, the poll found a couple of weak spots.

Latino voters in the district were slightly less likely than others to say they viewed this election as more important than usual. That could hold down the Democratic vote.

Rohrabacher, however, has been dogged by controversy over his friendliness to people connected with Russia’s government. Unsurprisingly, an overwhelming share of Democrats said his contacts with Russian officials made them less likely to vote for Rohrabacher. So did 10% of registered Republicans. Among the small number of undecided voters, 45% said the Russia issue made them less likely to vote for him.

45th District




The 45th District, which covers a swath of Orange County from Irvine east through most of the foothill communities, resembles the 49th in its affluent, college-educated demographics. Clinton carried the district by 5 percentage points.

The Republican incumbent, Rep. Mimi Walters of Laguna Beach, had confidently predicted she could ride out the national tide flowing against her party, but the poll shows her Democratic challenger, UC Irvine law professor Katie Porter, leading 52% to 45%.

This race illustrates the failure so far of GOP strategies. Walters put money into helping get the gas tax repeal measure on the ballot, hoping it would spur GOP turnout. But the poll shows the measure getting only about a third of the vote in the district.


Republicans have also put millions into ads attacking Porter as too far to the left. That effort has had limited impact. By 50% to 38%, likely voters have a favorable opinion of Porter; self-identified moderates view her favorably 52% to 37%. By contrast, 50% of the district’s voters have a negative view of Walters, compared with 45% who see her positively.

39th District


Only a very, very strong wave could drag Cisneros into Congress


The GOP may have had more success with negative ads in the 39th District, which covers much of northern Orange County as well as parts of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. Gil Cisneros has battled accusations that he sexually harassed a former Democratic state Assembly candidate, Melissa Fazli. A Republican super PAC allied with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) has run advertisements in the district about the charge.

Fazli withdrew the accusation this week after a meeting with Cisneros, saying it was based on a “misunderstanding.” The super PAC said it would stop running the ads.

The poll can’t directly measure the impact of that issue, but 45% of likely voters have a negative view of Cisneros. That includes 10% of registered Democrats. Just 41% of likely voters view him positively.

Cisneros and Republican Young Kim are locked in a dead heat, the poll showed, with the Democrat holding a nominal 49%-48% edge.

25th District




The demographic picture looks somewhat different in northern Los Angeles County, where Republican Rep. Steve Knight hopes to hold off a challenge from Katie Hill, the 31-year-old former executive director of PATH, a nonprofit organization that provides services to homeless people.

Hill has a slight edge, 50% to 46%, within the poll’s margin of error.

The district, which covers Simi Valley, Santa Clarita and the Palmdale area, has fewer college-educated white voters than the wealthy Orange County suburbs. But it has a higher share of minority voters.

Latinos make up a bit more than 1 in 5 of the district’s likely voters and support Hill by nearly 2 to 1, the poll found. Hill also benefits from a significant gender gap, with women backing her 53% to 44% over Knight, while men split almost evenly. Just over half of the voters have a strongly negative view of Trump

10th District




Similar factors have put Republican Rep. Jeff Denham’s career at risk as he seeks a fifth term in a district centered on Modesto in the Central Valley, where Latinos make up more than 40% of the district's population, but about a quarter of the likely voters.

Denham’s Democratic opponent, Josh Harder, has the support of roughly two-thirds of Latinos, the poll found.

White voters split 52% for Denham, 43% for Harder. Together, that’s enough to give the Democrat a 50%-45% edge in a district that Clinton narrowly carried in 2016 and where 57% of voters say they disapprove of Trump.
Goal ThermometerHere on the right is the Blue America "California-- Not Blue Enough" thermometer for 2018. To win Congress, Democratic voters are stuck with whichever candidates the primaries advanced to the general election. There are some really good candidates and some really bad candidates-- and mostly candidates in between. The DCCC put its finger on the scales in many districts to make sure New Dems and "ex"-Republicans from the Republican wing of the party would be the general election candidates. To stop Trump, we are now stuck with a situation where we have to vote for them too. But that isn't what Blue America is about. We're raising money only for the progressive candidates. Sure, vote for the Democrap candidates to help put Trump in check, but only contribute money to the progressives who will actually help solve America's problems when they get into Congress. Isn't that what this is ultimately all about? So, who, precisely, are they? Tap on the thermometer and you'll see.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, September 27, 2018

Yesterday's Polls Today

>

Not sure what it refers to, but it looks good

The NY Times/Siena poll showed good news for one of the Blue America candidates. They had Katie Porter with a substantial lead over Trump rubber stamp Mimi Walters, 48% to 43%. Unfortunately, the Times/Siena poll is the least credible polling operation I've seen since Rasumussen and their data is virtually worthless. Still... the good news is that Porter is gaining ground on Walters. In fact, the FiveThirtyEight forecaster shows her with a 69.7% chance to win as opposed to Walters' 30.3% chance. You can support Katie Porter's grassroots efforts here-- as Ryan's toxic SuperPAC continues to smear her with tons of Adelson money.




PPP polled a couple of Texas congressional districts (TX-07, where Trump's net approval is minus 3, and TX-32, where Trump's net approval is down a stupendous minus 10) and found Colin Allred (D) leading Rep. Peter Sessions in the North Dallas area 47-42%, and Lizzie Fletcher (D) leading Rep. John Culberson in the west Houston area 47-45%.

Yesterday's most important and biggest polling dump came from Ipsos via Reuters. Michigan, for example, looks so good at the top of the ticket (governor and Senate) that the Democrats are talking about seriously putting more congressional seats into play. Democratic incumbent Senato Debbie Stabenow is leading Republican challenger John James by 20 points (which is not unexpected), while the open gubernatorial chair was expected to be closer than how its turning out. Gretchen Whitmer (D) is rolling over Trumpist state Attorney General Bill Schuette by 13 points.




Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have similar situations, while Ohio, which is more Republican-oriented, still shows Sherrod Brown way ahead (11 points) of self-funding multimillionaire Jim Renacci and the gubernatorial race a dead heat between Richard Cordray (D) and Mike DeWine (R). Brown has raised $23,165,903 while Renacci has struggled raising anything. He wrote himself a check for $4,000,000 to bring his total to just $6,190,352. The Republican Party has pretty much given up on him and there is no outside IE money coming in on his behalf. McConnell's SuperPAC, for example, spent $14,400 and the NRSC spent zero.

In Pennsylvania, incumbent Governor Tom Wolf (D) has a 17 point lead over Republican Scott Wagner and incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Casey is leading GOP Rep. Lou Barletta (another Trumpist) by a hefty 16 points. Again, the finances are very bad for the GOP. Casey has raised $18,280,829 to Barletta's $4,044,469 and there is no significant outside money in the race, indicating, again, that the GOP has given up on Barletta. The NRSC and McConnell's SuperPAC combined have spent a grand total of ZERO in Pennsylvania. This is going to be very good down-ticket of course and, in fact, another poll released yesterday (just NYTimes/Siena, unfortunately) shows Democrat Susan Wild leading Marty Nothstein (R) 50-42% in the open 7th district.

Wisconsin looks good too. Governor Scott Walker trails Democratic state schools superintendent Tony Evers by 7 points and Senate incumbent Tammy Baldwin (D) leads Republican Leah Vukmir by a healthy 52% to 39%. Baldwin has raised $22,616,357 to Vukmir's $2,002,657. So far Republican PACs have ignored Vukmir's plight and are not spending in the state. The other day Baldwin was down in WI-01 campaigning with Randy Bryce in Paul Ryan's old congressional district, where the Republicans have already poured in $1.8 million-- in a vicious personal smear campaign against Bryce, totally unanswered by the DCCC, which has never liked his independence or the fact that he's a working class guy who doesn't wear suits and had the temerity to show up at the DCCC building in work boots, frightening Dan Sena and Ben Ray Lujan, and has a grassroots following suspicious of the DCCC. (Please consider helping Randy keep up here.)




Among other Ipsos findings, polling in Indiana shows Senator Joe Donnelly (D) slightly ahead of Trumpist Mike Braun, 48% to 43% in a very red state. Donnelly has raised $11,495,629 to Braun's $8,258,437, most of which was used up in a vicious, expensive primary. As of the June 30 FEC reporting deadline, Donnelly had $6,391,931 on hand to Braun's $1,071,454. It's worth noting that Braun wrote himself several checks amounting to $6,241,377, but it is unclear if he will continue spending his own money, on a campaign that has not caught fire, at that rate now. Outside spending is intense. The DSCC has already spent $1,508,227, Schumer's PAC kicked in $9,057,627 and two other Democratic Party PACs have spent $1,937,089 and $1,913,433. McConnell's PAC has thrown in $3,937,662 but the NRSC has only put in $801,863 so far.

Ipsos also polled Arizona, where Blue Dog congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema leads Republican congresswoman Martha McSally 47-44% in a pure lesser-of-two-evils race. As of the August 8th FEC reporting deadline, Sinema had $2,468,252 on hand to McSally's $1,906,974. Outside spending dwarfs candidate spending. The Republicans have already spent $5,090,954 attacking Sinema (calling her a liberal, despite a voting record that shows she's nearly as conservative as McSally) and the DSCC has spent $418,499 while 3 other Democratic PACs have come after McSally with $2,397,413, $1,727,286 and $1,090,947 (Planned Parenthood).




The Ipsos polling shows Beto O'Rourke (D) leading Ted Cruz (R) in Texas within the margin of error-- 47% to 45% and Nevada's Republican Senate incumbent Dean Heller holding on against mulltimillionaire conservative Democrat Jack Rosen with 46% to her 43% (also within the margin of error. Rosen has refused to put any of her own substantial fortune into the race and Heller has outraised her $10,677,374 to $9,238,490. He has $5,874,814 left and she still has $3,828,593. Outside spending is gargantuan-- $10,093,116 attacking Heller and $5,423,033 attacking Rosen. The open seat Nevada gubernatorial race is also within the margin of error, Laxalt 43% and Sisolak 40%.

Other polls from yesterday includes one the L.A. Times released by USC that shows Democrats leading Republicans in a generic ballot test, 55% to 41%-- with likely voters disapproving of Trump’s overall performance in office by 57% to 39%. And then there was a late afternoon Quinnipiac poll of Florida, with really good news: as neo-fascist Ron DeSantis continues to fall apart, Andrew Gillum now leads him 54% to 45% among likely voters. How's that for some good tidings from the Sunshine State? Gillum continues to blanket the TV airwaves with ads but the more people see them, the more they dislike him.

And just for the fun of it, let me end today with a brief look at VA-07, the district where Tea Party extremist Dave Brat beat Eric Cantor. It looks like a former spy and current Blue Dog, Abigail Spanberger, could beat him. It's a district with a PVI of R+6, where Obama lost both times and where Trump beat Hillary 50.5% to 44.0%. Monmouth's poll shows Spanberger beating Brat 47-42% among registered voters who have voted at least once since 2010. Deep dive:
Spanberger holds a sizable advantage in the Richmond suburbs of Henrico County (58% to 30% for Brat) and Chesterfield County (50% to 35%)-- areas that supported Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 after voting for Mitt Romney in 2012. Brat holds a 57% to 35% lead over Spanberger in the remaining part of the district. This area, which runs from Culpeper to Nottoway County, actually gave Donald Trump a bigger margin of support in 2016 than it did for Romney four years earlier. Overall, voters in Virginia’s 7th district supported Romney for president by 11 points in 2012 and Trump by just over 6 points in 2016. Brat won re-election to his House seat by 15 points two years ago.

“This is a tale of two districts. The Richmond suburbs that backed Clinton in 2016 support Spanberger while the Trump strongholds are firmly behind Brat. The reason this race is so close right now is because there are more voters in the suburban areas,” said Murray.

Brat holds a very large lead over Spanberger among white voters without a college degree (61% to 31%). This is offset by Spanberger’s advantage among college educated white voters (52% to 42%) and non-white voters regardless of education (68% to 9%). Just over half of all voters (56%) have a lot of interest in the election, which includes 63% of Spanberger supporters and 62% of Brat supporters.

The district is currently divided on which party they want in charge of Congress, with 39% of VA-07 voters saying they prefer to see GOP control and 37% saying they want the Democrats to take over. Another 20% say that party control of Congress does not matter to them. Spanberger does better than Brat in winning over partisan converts.  The poll finds that 83% of self-identified Republicans support Brat, but 13% say they will cross party lines to vote for Spanberger. The Democratic candidate, on the other hand, holds onto 91% of her fellow partisans while losing none to Brat.  Independent voters are divided at 45% for Spanberger and 36% for Brat.

“Some Republican voters who are lukewarm on Brat feel comfortable enough with Spanberger to give her their support, at least for now,” said Murray.

Spanberger, a former CIA officer, gets a positive rating of 43% favorable and 19% unfavorable from VA-07 voters, with 39% having no opinion. Views of Brat are more mixed at 35% favorable and 27% unfavorable, with 37% having no opinion. The incumbent entered Congress after upsetting former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the 2014 Republican primary.

Overall, 47% of VA-07 voters approve of the job Trump is doing as president while a similar 46% disapprove, although those who strongly disapprove (40%) slightly outnumber those who strongly approve (33%). The poll finds that 61% of potential voters say it is very important for them to cast a vote for Congress that shows how they feel about the president-- with Trump opponents (70%) being somewhat more likely than Trump supporters (64%) to feel this way.

Currently, 27% of voters say Brat has been too supportive of the president, while 39% say he has offered the right amount of support and 8% say he has not been supportive enough. Another 26% have no opinion. As a point of comparison, a similar number of voters (25%) worry that Spanberger will be too supportive of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi if she is elected to Congress, while 40% say she will offer the right amount of support and 9% say she will offer too little support. Another 26% have no opinion.

When asked to choose the top issue in their vote for Congress from a list of six policy areas, 30% of VA-07 voters pick health care. This is followed by immigration (17%), gun control (13%), tax policy (13%), job creation (12%), and abortion (7%).  Voters are divided on whether they approve (42%) or disapprove (39%) of the tax reform plan passed by Congress last year.

Spanberger has a slight advantage on handling voters’ top concern of health care, with 37% saying they trust the Democrat more to keep health care affordable compared to 32% who say they trust Brat more on this issue. Another 18% say they trust both candidates equally. On handling the issue of illegal immigration, 36% say they trust Brat more, 34% say they trust Spanberger more, and 18% say they trust both candidates equally.

Going Down by Nancy Ohanian

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,