I Wonder If Pundits Predicting That The GOP Will Keep Control Of The Senate Factor In Schumer's Incompetence

As Trump's leader-less FEC prepared for Hurricane Dorian's landfall Saturday morning, Trump took time out of his busy schedule of golfing and not going to Poland to tweet about giving the wealthiest Americans another tax cut and to start fighting with his reality TV doppelgänger Omarosa, who he brought into the government and then fired:

He's very worried that another of his ex-employees is going to do a tell-all about what a psychopath he is too, Madeleine Westerhout, the one who was fired last week for getting drunk and telling reporters that Trump won't allow his daughter Tiffany in any photos with him because he thinks she's too fat. At least he won't have to worry about Jim Mattis directly attacking him. In an interview with CBS News, Mattis said "I will not speak ill of a sitting president. I’m not going to do it… He’s an unusual president, our president is."

Most Republicans in Congress know how to read polls and know how to read the pulse of the voters. And they know Trump is on his way out. Republicans are desperate to hold onto the Senate, at least so they can obstruct anything the next president, a Democrat-- with a Democratic House-- tries to accomplish. Yesterday, Carl Hulse wrote a piece for the NY Times, Both Parties See Control of the Senate as Pivotal, noting that "it is the rapidly intensifying struggle for control of the Senate that will determine how power is truly wielded in Washington come 2021... [Republicans] see maintaining control of the Senate as their last line of defense against the prospect of Democrats controlling both the House and the White House. Democrats... say that winning the White House only to have Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, remain in charge of the Senate would stifle any legislative effort to undo the effects of the Trump presidency." Who else has managed to screw up all three branches of government simultaneously as badly as #MoscowMitch?

The kind of convention wisdom Hulse is addicted to points directly to "strategists" for both parties and independent analysts currently giving Republicans a narrow edge in narrowly holding on to the Senate "given the small universe of highly competitive races. But the distinct possibility of wild cards adding to an already volatile atmosphere was underscored this week by the news that Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, will retire at the end of the year. His departure unexpectedly put another seat in play and gave Democrats a second pickup opportunity in a state they believe is trending increasingly blue.

Schumer's role in this play is to say "We have a decent shot. Republican incumbents and Donald Trump are far weaker in the challenger states than people realize.” Meanwhile, the Republicans screech "Socialists!!!" and pretend immensely popular progressive programs like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal are toxic. Todd Young (R-IN), the chairman of the NRSC fed Hulse the party line: “Every week Democrats offer up a different radical proposal that alienates mainstream voters in competitive states, so it’s best to let Democrats keep talking.

Hulse wrote that "Republicans in charge of the party’s overall Senate strategy say that the progressive agenda being embraced by leading Democratic presidential candidates and other prominent voices in the party-- Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, public benefits for undocumented immigrants-- is turning off the swing voters that Democrats will need to win Senate seats in places like Iowa and Arizona. Republicans are doing their best to brand Democrats as far out of the mainstream. The term socialist' will be a regular feature of Republican ads and speeches." The last time the GOP went crazy on their "socialists!!!" nonsense, the Democrats wound up with trouncing the GOP for around 2 decades.

In 1932 the brilliant Republicans decided their electoral strategy would be to call the Democrats "socialists," the year FDR defeated incumbent president, Herbet Hoover 57.4% to 39.7% with a 472-59 vote rout in the electoral college. (FDR lost 6 states-- Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and Delaware). That same year, the Republicans lost 101 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate, flipping both bodies. Two years later, the Republicans were shrieking, "See? We warned you; they're nothing but a bunch of socialists." That was a good midterm for the Dems as the GOP shed another 14 seats in the House and 10 more in the Senate. Imagine-- just 25 Republicans left in the U.S. Senate. How sweet does that sound?

The GOP decided the best strategy to use to defeat Roosevelt in 1936 would be to show voters how horrible his socialist policies were. That didn't work out so well for them, as Alf Landon wound up losing every state but Maine and Vermont-- 8 electoral votes to Roosevelt's 523. The landslide was 60.8% to 36.5%. The Republicans somehow managed to lose another 15 seats in the House, which then had 334 Democrats to 88 Republicans. In the Senate, 5 more seats flipped red to blue. There were only 17 Republicans left to fight socialism.

In 1940, Roosevelt put an actual socialist, Henry Wallace, on the ticket as his running mate and managed another landslide-- 10 points in the popular vote and 449-82 in the electoral college. Having picked up some congressional seats in the 1938 midterms, the Republicans lost more in each House in 1940. Four years later, the GOP was certain their "socialism!!!" would finally work. It didn't. FDR was reelected to a 4th term with 432 electoral votes to Thomas Dewey's 99. And once again-- his coattails were strong: 20 more Dems in the House. The Senate remained at 58 Democrats to 37 Republicans.

Hulse pointed out that the Dems "need a net gain of three seats to assume Senate control if they win the White House and four if they do not since the vice president serves as the tiebreaker in a 50-50 Senate... Both sides agree that just a handful of seats are truly up for grabs at this point, limiting Democratic opportunities for the gains they want."

“They need to put another seat on the board or pull another rabbit out of their hat in Alabama and I’m not sure they can,” said Jennifer E. Duffy, who handicaps Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Her Alabama reference points to the fact that Senator Doug Jones, a Democrat, faces re-election there after an upset victory in 2017 over Roy S. Moore, a former judge who was accused of sexual misconduct with teenage girls. Washington Republicans are determined to deny Mr. Moore a rematch. But other Republican candidates will be heavily favored in a very conservative state, making Mr. Jones the only seriously endangered Democratic incumbent at the moment. The party is defending a dozen seats compared with 23 for Republicans.

In contrast to 2018, Republicans otherwise will be almost entirely on defense in 2020 with Republican-held seats in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina considered by both parties to be the top targets; seats in Iowa and elsewhere could move on to the list as the campaigns there develop.

Republicans are now maniacally calling all Democrats socialists, even Democrats with voting records to the right of Republicans! Right now, far right Blue Dogs in the House, like Anthony Brindisi (NY), Joe Cunningham (SC), Jeff Van Drew (NJ) are consistently voting less progressively than Republicans Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Thomas Massie (KY) and John Katko (NY). Are they all socialists? Justin Amash, a former conservative Republican and today a conservative Independent, has racked up a lifetime voting record score of 32.72. These are the lifetime scores of a half dozen right-wing Democrats the brain-dead NRCC refers to as socialists:

• Jared Golden (ME)- 32.56
• Ben McAdams (UT)- 32.56
• Kendra Horn (OK)- 30.23
• Anthony Brindisi (NY)- 20.93
• Joe Cunningham (SC)- 20.93
• Jeff Van Drew (NJ)- 20.93

Meanwhile all of Schumer's handpicked candidates-- like Mark Kelly in Arizona, John Frackenlooper in Colorado, Sarah Riggs Amico in Georgia, Cal Cunningham in North Carolina, Theresa Greenfield in Iowa-- are pretty conservative and don't back any of the policies that are animating the Democratic base (with the exception of beating Trump). Hulse presented the DSCC talking point which is basically that "it is Republican candidates who are caught in a squeeze, trapped between independent and suburban Republicans uncomfortable with Mr. Trump and base voters who will brook no dissent when it comes to the president. Mr. Schumer noted that the same crosscurrents helped Democrats defeat the Republican senator Dean Heller in Nevada last year. 'As Dean Heller learned, when they embrace Trump, they lose the middle, and when they run away from Trump, they lose the base,' he said in an interview, describing what he sees as the quandary for Republican incumbents in contested states. Democrats say they see opportunity in the low poll numbers for embattled incumbents such as Senator Thom Tillis in North Carolina and Senator Susan Collins in Maine, who is facing the challenge of her political life after supporting the nomination of the Supreme Court justice Brett M. Kavanaugh as well as a tax bill that has proved unpopular with some in Maine. But Ms. Collins has shown in the past that she can overcome waves of discontent in her party and survive in a tough environment, similar to the way Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, has managed to defy the political odds in his state."

Hulse's hackishness really showed itself as he accepted his role as a stenographer instead of a reporter: "Democrats have struggled to land their preferred candidates in Georgia and Montana." Which Democrats? Many Democrats are over the moon that Teresa Tomlinson is running in Georgia, someone who may be a trifle too progressive and too independent-minded for Schumer, who prefers candidates like Mark Kelly who know exactly how to follow orders and not make waves. Hulse wrote, absurdly, that Frackenlooper's entry into the race is a good sign. He's been in the race for about a week and most Colorado Democrats say they want anyone but him-- including Colorado Democratic Party county chairs and, in private, the state party chair. And now Schumer is more hated in Colorado than Cory Gardner. Has Hulse been asleep all week? Does that NY Times need a more with it political reporter? All through his piece he insinuated that "Democrats" are delighted that Schumer's picks are running. Democrats everywhere are holding Schumer's endorsement against his picks.

So far, Blue America has endorsed Andrew Romanoff in Colorado and Maggie Toulouse Oliver in New Mexico, both of whom are being aggressively opposed by the corrupt DC Establishment Dems. We are in the midst of vetting several other are we're likely to be endorsing someone not named Greenfield in Iowa and someone someone not named Cunningham in North Carolina. If you'd like to contribute to Romanoff or Oliver, please click on the 2020 Blue America Senate thermometer above.

DCCC Sure Doesn't Get A Profile In Courage Award For Their Stand On The NRA

Carl Hulse in the NY Times yesterday: "Here’s how significant things don’t get done in Washington even in a moment of crisis and opportunity. The president throws out a hodgepodge of ideas but refuses to put his full weight behind any of them. Senate Republicans, grappling for an answer that responds to public clamor but doesn’t alienate their conservative base, focus on a small fix unlikely to satisfy many people even if it could overcome internal divisions. House Republicans say they will wait to see what the Senate does-- though history has shown that can be a very long wait. Democrats push for a broad debate that Republicans want nothing to do with. That’s where Washington stands now on the subject of new gun legislation after the school shooting in Parkland, Fla. Despite immense public pressure in part from students who escaped the shooting, the outlook for any consequential action remains dim as the president and lawmakers diverge on how best to respond."

Did everyone read Daniel Marans' story Tuesday about how the DCCC advised candidates to stick to the "thoughts and prayers" messaging after the NRA massacre in Las Vegas? Hulse didn't use it as part of his story but it is part of the story of congressional dysfunction over guns. (I should mention that DCCC chair Ben Ray Luján himself regularly takes large sums of money from gun manufacturers, although not from the NRA.) On October 1 a DCCC staffer, Evan Lukaske, warned Democrats not to "politicize" the massacre by talking about gun violence prevention policy. "There will be time for politics and policy discussion, but any message today should be on offering thoughts/prayers for victims and their families, and thanking 1st responders who saved lives." Perhaps the massacre in Florida would never have happened if that DCCC didn't send out that message and Democrats would have politicized the murders in Vegas.

Several members of Congress I asked about this told me the DCCC staffers are "clueless," "incompetent" and "the bottom of the barrel," that Ben Ray Luján is a disaster and that they can only win elections in wave years. One very prominent Democrat told me "the DCCC is more likely to slow down a wave than do anything to bolster [or accelerate] it."

Even when major corporations are severing their ties with the NRA, the DCCC adamantly refuses to back away from notorious NRA allies-- like Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ) and Anthony Brindisi (NY)-- they have recruited. This week even Dick's Sporting Goods "is taking new steps to curtail the sale of firearms, including ending sales of assault-style rifles and banning the sale of guns to people younger than 21," something that has the NRA in a tizzy. Yesterday Dick's Chairman and CEO, Edward Stack, was on Good Morning America said the company was moving on-- far more than Ben Ray Luján and the DCCC are willing to do.

"To think about the loss and the grief that those kids and those parents had, we said, ‘We need to do something,'" Stack, whose father, Dick, started the business 70 years ago, explained. "And we’re taking these guns out of all of our stores permanently."

When asked whether there is a chance the company will reverse its position on the newly announced ban, Stack replied, "Never."

"We’re staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment. I’m a gun owner myself," Stack said. "We’ve just decided that based on what’s happened with these guns, we don’t want to be a part of this story and we’ve eliminated these guns permanently."

This is something Dick's sent to the Parkland students, not to the DCCC-- though maybe they should have. "Thoughts and prayers are not enough. We have tremendous respect and admiration for the students organizing and making their voices heard regarding gun violence in schools and elsewhere in our country. We have heard you. The nation has heard you. We support and respect the Second Amendment, and we recognize and appreciate that the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible, law-abiding citizens. But we have to help solve the problem that is in front of us. Gun violence is an epidemic that is taking the lives of too many people, including the brightest hope for the future of America-- our kids... Beginning today, DICK’S Sporting Goods is committed to the following":

• We will no longer sell assault-style rifles, also referred to as modern sporting rifles. We had already removed them from all DICK’S stores after the Sandy Hook massacre, but we will now remove them from sale at all 35 Field & Stream stores.
• We will no longer sell firearms to anyone under 21 years of age.
• We will no longer sell high capacity magazines.
• We never have and never will sell bump stocks that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire more rapidly.

They also urged Congress to pass these regulations, something that will not be helped by the DCCC's insistence of recruiting NRA allies.

• Ban assault-style firearms
• Raise the minimum age to purchase firearms to 21
• Ban high capacity magazines and bump stocks
• Require universal background checks that include relevant mental health information and previous interactions with the law
• Ensure a complete universal database of those banned from buying firearms
• Close the private sale and gun show loophole that waives the necessity of background checks

This is a list of exactly what the gun manufacturers oppose and which their lobbying arm, the NRA, will go insane over. Already the so-called "Freedom Caucus," the most far right grouping of Republicans in Congress are working on Trumpanzee to get him back in line in terms of gun control. They know Trump has no core values and that's he's liable to do anything that he perceives to benefit his own narrow interests of the moment.

“We’re pretty sure they’re going to do something just for the sake of doing something,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) said, leaving a raucous debate between Freedom Caucus members on how to address the White House’s gun control push. Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) said members were shocked by where Trump was willing to go on gun control.

So far, Trump has spoken in support of more comprehensive background checks and signed a memo for his administration to ban “bump stocks,” devices that make semiautomatic weapons work like fully automatic ones, without Congress’s approval.

He’s floated giving police the authority to temporarily confiscate guns from those reported to have violent or threatening behavior or who have mental illnesses, and said he would consider raising the minimum age for purchasing certain assault rifles from 18 to 21. He’s also suggested arming school teachers.

Many of Trump’s positions signal a clear break from the traditional Republican talking points on mass shootings, which typically steer away from any actual gun control-related measures. Now it appears the Freedom Caucus and its chair, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), are strategizing how to steer Trump back in their direction, away from gun control and toward armed policing and a focus on institutionalizing those with mental illnesses.

“There was talk about how do we give him meaningful alternatives,” Sanford said.

This strategy has been successful in the past. Trump has been known to engage these conservatives, even if it risks killing the policymaking effort altogether. It wasn’t too long ago when Trump voiced support for Democratic-driven immigration policy before turning back to propose a kitchen sink of immigration restrictions spun up by Congress’s archconservatives-- a hardline position that ultimately tanked negotiations in the Senate.

If conservatives succeed in dominating the gun control conversation, this could spell trouble ahead for any hopes of legislative action.

The neo-Nazi Freedom Caucus is virtually the only group in Congress that even opposes outlawing bump stocks, which are basically only about mass murder. Obviously they oppose anything that will cut into NRA profits, like raising the age of gun purchases or banning any weapons or ammo types at all.

There are very few DCCC-endorsed candidates I would trust to vote correctly on gun policy. One of the exceptions is Lisa Brown in very gun-friendly Eastern Washington. Here's her statement on the issue:

As a mother and community member, I’m deeply concerned that students and teachers across our country do not feel safe at school, and that yet another community is being racked by the grief, loss, fear, and sadness brought on by another school shooting.

I hear from parents, students, teachers, gun owners and many others about the frustration and outrage they feel at the nearly two decades of ineffectual statements by congressional leaders of both parties  expressing condolences, saying their hearts are broken, yet not bringing any solutions forward which can actually be voted on and implemented.

As with any public health crisis, it is the responsibility of congressional leaders to invest in evidence-based solutions to reduce fatalities and injuries from gun violence.

As a member of Congress, I would not give in to polarization and the current logjam. I believe we don't have to choose between the Second Amendment and children's lives.  We can enact policies that prevent and reduce gun violence, while not violating constitutional rights to own and use firearms legally and responsibly.

I would immediately sponsor legislation and vote for effective solutions backed by evidence and by public support, such as banning bump stocks, closing loopholes in the background check system, and enhancing mental health treatment.

I would also immediately convene meetings throughout eastern Washington to listen to the families of victims, domestic violence survivors, students, teachers, gun owners, local law enforcement, researchers and others-- to find common ground and make recommendations for solutions.

My campaign will not accept contributions from the NRA, and I would not run my congressional office on a “pay to play” basis. All stakeholders, starting with residents of eastern Washington, would have an avenue for presenting their point of view on issues to my office.

Since congressional leaders, including Rep. McMorris Rodgers, won’t even bring forward a bipartisan commission or fund research, there is practically no chance they will take on more challenging issues, such as waiting periods for gun purchases and effective regulation of AR-15 style weapons.

I’m encouraged by students speaking out and demanding action. I did this myself as a student and I believe the solutions will come from grassroots and community action, in partnership with elected officials who are responsive to their communities, not beholden to donors and special interests.

Can We Expect Courageousness From Our Elected Officials?

As I've mentioned before, I got a threatening letter from Trump's attorney over a post we did on Melania's former career. I didn't think much about it and my own attorney told me to ignore it. Since then one member of the DWT staff told me he's been getting threats-- including to his family-- from Trumpist deplorables. A well-known public figure who is about to start writing a regular column was wondering if it would be safe and if, perhaps he should use a pseudonym. (In the end he decided to use his real name and his column will start in about 2 weeks.) Today a fiery grassroots progressive Blue America helped elect e-mailed me: "I am so sickened by what is going on. Bannon, etc. I want you to know I plan to fight very, very, hard against Donald Trump's ugly policies and beliefs. This is going to be so awful, but we must have courage and determination. Thanks for all you did to help me get this seat back. At least we have Democrats here who are not fooled by Trump and his crowd!" I know she;'s not-- and never will be. Her colleagues, on the other hand... I look at them and I see potential collaborators. I hope I'm wrong. This was brave of someone at Google Maps to do this morning:

Who will stand up to the coming fascist storm and who will try swimming with the hide? I was heartened by a post I saw a few days ago at TPM about an Erie County state legislator who introduced a bill to ban so-called "conversion therapy" in his county-- and not just banned it, but named the bill for Trump's obsessive homophobe Mike Pence.

Erie County legislator Patrick Burke proposed the Prevention of Emotional Neglect and Childhood Endangerment bill, which would ban the practice of conversion therapy locally.

“I think it is an abusive practice. Some of the things that are actually carried out in conversion therapy are pretty disturbing,” Burke said in an interview with WBFO.

“This practice has no business in our society and really the idea of trying to sexually desensitize children is disgusting and distributing,” he continued.

Burke told the station that invoking Pence's name was intentional because he supported the practice as governor of Indiana. During his 2000 congressional campaign, Pence's website stated that "resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."

Burke, an independent Democrat, said he wants it to really "sink in" that Pence supports the practice.

“Mike Pence is probably going to have the most power of any vice president in the history of our country and he has openly advocated for conversion therapy," he told WBFO. "I want that to sink into people. I want them to realize it's a serious issue of abuse of children flatly, whether they are gay or not, it’s abuse, then you have a man who is going to have enormous power over all of us, who advocates for it."

Burke told the station that he unsuccessfully pushed for the issue over the past two years and is hoping to build up more support for it this time around.

That takes some courage in a county where psychotic Trumpist Carl Paladino is taken seriously and where the presidential vote was uncomfortably close this year. Obama won Erie County in 2012 with 220,184 votes (57%). This year Hillary won, but it was much tighter-- 192,065 votes (50.1%). Romney only took 159,678 votes in the county. Trump got 173,817. We're going to need more courageous men and women like Patrick Burke going forward.

This morning, the NY Times ran a piece by Carl Hulse that touched on whether or not Republicans in the Senate would let Trumpism roll over them. Chuck Schumer, a sleaze ball hack from Brooklyn who has taken money from Trump in the past, who he gets along with chummily and who has the same authoritarian personality, has already signaled he plans to be a collaborationist with the new regime. Schumer-- every fiber of Schumer-- sings "kapo." So what about the Republicans? Hulse has some hope; I don't. He writes of "a handful of independent-minded Republican senators who have shown a willingness to break with the president-elect and have readily split with their own party on issues in the past." I'll have to see it before I believe it-- especially when the pressure starts to build-- as it inevitably will if this whiny spoiled baby is thwarted in any way :important" to him.

Some are already making known their readiness to take on the new administration. “There will be some areas where I don’t agree, and it will be my job to represent a coequal branch of the government,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who was outspoken in his criticism of Mr. Trump during the campaign.

Other senators who will be prominent in the “will-they-or-won’t-they” caucus include Mr. Graham’s longtime ally, John McCain of Arizona; Jeff Flake of Arizona; Susan Collins of Maine; Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; Lamar Alexander of Tennessee; Ben Sasse of Nebraska; and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

They will differ issue by issue, and they will certainly side much more often than not with the Republican majority. And don’t count on them to block cabinet nominees such as their Republican colleague Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Mr. Trump’s choice for attorney general, despite criticism of his civil rights record. They know and like Mr. Sessions.

They are poised to challenge the new administration and their colleagues on policy areas in which they deeply disagree or on some of the more extreme proposals that arose from the Trump campaign.

“If the president came forth with a legislative proposal that would ban all Muslims from coming into the United States, I would obviously oppose something like that,” said Ms. Collins, a centrist who wrote an op-ed article in August announcing that she would not vote for Mr. Trump because he did not represent historical Republican values.

She and others in this group are fully capable of building bipartisan coalitions large enough to assert control over an issue and push legislation in one direction or another, siphoning some authority from the leadership. Though House conservatives are agitating to eliminate the filibuster, most of the senators in this group would be reluctant to support such a move since they derive some of their own clout from the threat of that procedural tool.

We'll see how willing these Republicans will be to stand up to pressure-- real pressure-- once Trump, Bannon and Pence start rolling. Besides, they'll certainly have a gaggle of ultra-conservative Democrats who are up for reelection in 2018 to deal with. These are a bunch of cowardly political hacks always eager to show the folks back home that they like working with Republicans anyway. These are the worst of the worst-- and the number next to their name represents the percentage of the vote Trump just got in their state. The no backbone caucus, ordered by how much they cross the aisle to oppose progressive initiatives and back conservative ones-- the terrible to absolute worst:

• Bill Nelson (FL)- 49.1%
• Jon Tester (MT)- 56.5%
• Claire McCaskill (MO)- 57.1%
• Joe Donnelly (IN)- 57.2%
• Joe Manchin (WV)- 68.7%
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)- 64.1%

And these are the senators Hulse is counting on... along with Trump's scores in their states. He won every one of their states except Maine:

• Susan Collins (ME)- 45.2%
• Lamar Alexander (TN)- 61.1%
• Lindsey Graham (SC)- 54.9%
• John McCain (AZ)- 49.5%
• Lisa Murkowski (AK)- 52.9%
• Jeff Flake (AZ)- 49.5%
• Ben Sasse (NE)- 60.3%
• Rand Paul (KY)- 62.5%

McCain, Murkowsky and Paul were all just reelected to 6 year terms. Murkowski, who Hulse labeled "somewhat of a free agent," beat Joe Miller-- a Trump extremist running on the Libertarian line-- 44.3- 29.5%. McCain proven far more popular in Arizona than Trump did. He drew 53.4% (1,089,324 votes) to Trump's 49.5% (1,021,154 votes). Hulse pointed out that "McCain most likely ran his last race, freeing him from electoral concerns about a backlash from the right." Kentucky voters, though, were more enthusiastic about Trump than about Paul. Paul took 1,090,151 votes (57.3%) while Trump cleaned up with 1,202,942 votes (62.5%). Trump won every county in the state but Jefferson (Louisville) and Fayette (Lexington). Paul's landslide can't be denied but he also lost in Jefferson and Fayette counties and lost 5 others that Trump won.

Flake is the only one of these Republicans up for reelection in 2018-- and Trump has already threatened to finance a primary opponent. Hulse termed him "One of the most outspoken Trump foes in the Senate, he took Mr. Trump on directly at a private party meeting. Both in the House and the Senate, Mr. Flake has challenged his leadership, and in some cases has won, notably on his crusade against the home-state projects known as earmarks. A champion of immigration reform, he is up for re-election in 2018 and is likely to be hit from right and left."

Blue America will be closely looking at candidates for 2018 in terms of courage as well as policy. Are you ready?