Will RAGE Mean Anything To Trump Supporters?

I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but do Trump supporters read books? The release of Woodward's book, right on top of The Atlantic's revelations about what Trump thinks of American military servicemembers, should be the coup de grâce. But we've all lost track of the instances that were the straw that broken the camel's back. They never are and never will be. Not the stuff from Michael Cohen, from Trump's niece, from Michael Wolff, from Brandy Lee, from Amanda Carpenter, Tim Alberta, Arlie Russell Hochschild, Phil Rucker and Carol Leonid, Jonathan Karl, Doug Wead, Neal Katyal, Alan Grayson, John Lithgow, Sarah Kendzior... So, as much as I am looking forward to reading Rage, I don't expect the revelations-- which were all over the news yesterday-- are going to change the minds-- the lizard brains-- of the hardcore 38-40% of voters who are addicted.

However... with all the TV channels-- even Fox-- running the tapes, maybe some of the congressional Republicans will... nah. Carl Bernstein termed Trump's lies about the virus "homicidal negligence." Where does that leave knee-jerk Trumpist governors Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Greg Abbott (R-TX), Brian Kemp (R-GA), Bill Lee (R-TN), Henry McMaster (R-SC), Kristi Noem (R-SD), Doug Ducey (R-AZ), Kim Reynolds (R-IA), Kevin Stitt (R-OK), Tate Reeves (R-MS), Kay Ivey (R-AL), Doug Burgum (R-ND), Mike Parson (R-MO), Gary Herbert (R-UT), Chris Sununu (R-NH)...

Chris Cillizza tackled the question many of us are asking: Why, why, why would the President grant Woodward so much access? And why would the famously denial-prone Trump allow Woodward to tape the conversations so that there can be no doubt about a) their authenticity or b) what he actually said? Obviously, it's all wound up in the sick Trump psyche.

For all the attacks he lobs at the media, there is NO president who has more closely followed how he is covered and treated by the press than Trump. And it's not even close. He is a voracious consumer of cable news as well as print newspapers. Cable TV has long been the lens through which he views the world and, since being elected president, the way that he analyzes-- in real time-- how he thinks he is doing.

That obsession with perception has naturally lead Trump into forever hunting out ways to cement his legacy in office. Whether that's the almost farcical attempt to buy Greenland or his fascination with the possibility of his face being added to Mount Rushmore, Trump has shown a unbending focus on creating and preserving his legacy. (Trump thinks like a real estate developer; he goes big!)

Aside from those attempts to secure a legacy in stone-- literally!-- Trump regularly uses campaign rallies, supposed policy speeches and his Twitter feed to promote the idea that he really deserves to be considered as one of the best presidents ever.

"I've always said I can be more presidential than any president in history except for Honest Abe Lincoln, when he's wearing the hat," Trump said in 2019. In a speech at the United Nations in 2018, Trump said that "in less than two years my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country." (The audience laughed.)

...Woodward is writing the history of each president as it happens. He is the most recognizable and famous political journalist in the country. When Bob Woodward says he wants to write about you-- even if you are a billionaire businessman or the president of the United States-- you are flattered. And you see opportunity, because if you can convince Woodward that the coverage of you is unfair and biased and that you are really doing a great job, well, then, maybe history starts remembering you the way you want it to.

...Trump has two Achilles heels in politics and life. The first is that he cares so desperately about how people think of him and remember him that he is willing to do almost anything to impact his legacy. The second is that he believes far too much in his own ability to persuade. Woodward (and the book he has produced) cuts at both of the heels.

Which means that Trump was essentially poking at his own weakest spots with every single word he uttered to Woodward. And yet, he couldn't stop himself.

Here are some reports of particularly damning revelations from the book, aside from the web of lies he wove about the coronavirus to deceive the public:

1- Dan Coats, a former very conservative Republican senator from Indiana who Trump hired and fired as director of national intelligence told Woodward that could not shake his "deep suspicions" that Putin "had something" on Señor Trumpanzee, seeing "no other explanation" for the president’s behavior. Coats and his staff examined the intelligence regarding Trump’s ties to Russia "as carefully as possible" and that he "still questions the relationship" between Trump and Putin despite the apparent absence of intelligence proof... "To him, a lie is not a lie. It's just what he thinks. He doesn't know the difference between the truth and a lie."

2- Trump spilled the beans to Woodward on a top secret new nuclear weapon, a very grave breach of national security. "I have built a nuclear-- a weapons system that nobody’s ever had in this country before. We have stuff that you haven’t even seen or heard about. We have stuff that Putin and Xi have never heard about before. There’s nobody-- what we have is incredible."

3- Former Defense Secretary James Mattis, who referred to Trump as "dangerous" and "unfit" with "no moral compass," told Woodward that Trump took foreign policy actions that showed adversaries "how to destroy America. That's what we're showing them. How to isolate us from all of our allies. How to take us down. And it's working very well."

4- Fauci was willing to go on record calling Trump's leadership on the virus "rudderless," saying his "sole purpose is to get reelected," and noting that "his attention span is like a minus number."

Biden Is Taking The Offensive Against A Floundering Trump

COVID-Kemp

Thanks to an incompetent ideologically-insane Trumpist governor, Georgia is one of the worst hit states by the pandemic. Georgia is the 8th most populous state but has the 5th most COVID cases of any state-- and the third most active cases, behind just Florida and California. Yesterday, Georgia reported 1,498 new cases, bringing the total to 270,471 cases, which comes to 25,474 cases per million residents (6th worst in the country and likely to overtake Alabama, for 5th place soon). Georgia now has had more cases than Italy, a country that was considered a disaster zone and that has around 6 times more residents than Georgia. Simple fact: Georgia has been, and still is, a text book case of how not to handle a pandemic. Republicans-- locally and nationally-- are allowing partisanship and ideology to drive decision-making, rather than science and public health concerns. Perhaps that helps explain why Trump is in trouble with independent voters in a state he won in 2016 by 5 points.

Almost all polling this summer has shown Biden and Trump within the margin of error. The most recent poll-- a PPP survey released yesterday-- shows Trump's approval underwater (52% disapproving and 46% approving) and shows Biden narrowly ahead 47-46% (within the margin of error).

Georgia has been a state where Republicans could count on winning without spending much-- and Democratic presidential candidates haven't seriously contested the state since... Jimmy Carter. This year, both Trump and Biden are spending money on advertising there. Biden has reserved ads in 9 states besides Georgia that Trump won in 2016: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. Trump has ads booked in just 3 states that Hillary won in 2016-- Minnesota, Nevada and New Hampshire.

Trump is playing defense in Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania and is likely to start taking Texas seriously as well.

Yesterday, CNN's Chris Cillizza reported that "the number of swing states is far larger than we've seen in any recent election, a reflection of President Donald Trump's asymmetrical politics and the rapidly changing demographics in the country."

That there are 15 states that meet that bar is a remarkable testament to how wide the two sides see the potential playing field-- and how far we have come in the past two decades in terms of what can be considered a swing state. If you think back to the 2000 and 2004 elections, the group of swing states was familiar-- and small. Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and maybe one or two others. And that was pretty much it. Both sides were forced to dump tens of millions of dollars into that handful of states, not because they wanted to, but because they couldn't justify spending that money in other states in hopes of turning them.

Barack Obama broke that deadlock in 2008 with wins in Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia, states no Democrat had won at the presidential level in decades. And Trump further widened the swing-state category by notching wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, typically Democratic victories, in 2016.

What's clear from the ad reservations for this fall is that the we are now dealing with an even wider playing field. Both campaigns have reserved time in Arizona, a state long safely in the Republican column. Ditto Minnesota, a state a Republican presidential candidate hasn't won since 1972(!).

Viewed broadly, the size of the playing field -- and the states included in it-- suggest that Biden is a) playing more offense than defense and b) sees a massive Electoral College victory as a genuine possibility.

...The most fascinating part of the ad reservation is that Biden has blocked out time in Texas and Georgia, two major electoral vote treasure troves, and two states that haven't been won by a Democratic running for president since 1976 and 1992, respectively. Polling in both states shows the race close; Trump has a 3.5 point lead in the Real Clear Politics polling average in Texas and a 1.1 point average margin in Georgia.

If Biden were to win one or both of Texas and Georgia, he would have at least the possibility of a major-- 350-plus electoral votes-- Electoral College landslide. (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said for the better part of the last two years that Democrats must win "big" in order to avoid Trump aggressively contesting the result and refusing to concede.)

But it's more than just Electoral College calculus at work here. If Biden goes through with his plans to spend on ads in Texas and Georgia -- which is a big "if" given how expensive statewide TV buys are in both states -- he would likely force Trump's campaign to spend (and spend heavily) in those states, too. And every dollar Trump spends defending Texas or Georgia (or both) is a dollar he can't play offense with in Minnesota or Nevada or Virginia.

The widening of the electoral playing field has been happening gradually over the past three elections. But for 15 states to be in the mix this late in a presidential election cycle-- including Electoral College monsters like Texas and Georgia-- is a new chapter in modern American politics. And one that holds all sorts of possibilities-- for both parties-- in future races.

I asked how Julie Oliver how it will play out in her district. Democratic presidential candidates haven't really campaign in Texas is ages. "Texans," she told me this morning, "put our state in play, running everywhere as hard as we could in 2018-- before anyone thought it was winnable. Just everyday people, standing up, building the movement to take our state back from the corrupt ideologues who for too long have tried to keep all of us divided while they enriched themselves. And in 2020, it's time for real change.

Like Julie and all Democratic candidates in swing states, Michigan state Rep and congressional candidate Jon Hoadley is happy to see Biden taking the Democratic case to voters in his state. "It's welcome news that the Biden/Harris ticket is campaigning in Michigan," he told me this morning. "We saw what happened four years ago when people took Michigan for granted. Voters want us to not only make the case why we're better for the job than the other candidates, but why we deserve their vote at all. A strong Biden/Harris ticket in Michigan will help bolster the case we're making for change in southwest Michigan, push back against the lies being spread by secret dark money groups, and remind even more voters what's at stake in this election." Meanwhile, Hoadley is hardly waiting; yesterday he launched his own first TV ad:

Maybe Reopening Willy Nilly Was A Bad Idea? Who Could Have Guessed?

As Chris Cilliza noted for CNN, Señor Trumpanzee has been suggesting the coronavirus is under control for 156 days now, starting with an interview on January 22 in Davos when he said "We have it totally under control. It's one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It's going to be just fine." It was wrong then and was still wrong on Tuesday when he told Republican students packed into a Phoenix church with no masks that "It's going away." It isn't-- at least not soon enough to save his victims in that church. "In the interim," wrote Cillizza, "2.4 million Americans have tested positive for coronavirus and more than 121,000 have died. And just Wednesday, the three most populous states in the country-- California, Florida and Texas-- reported record numbers of daily coronavirus cases... Never has the gap between Trump's fanciful rhetoric been wider nor more dangerous. While Trump has always lived in an alternate reality in which he is winning, winning always winning, the stakes have typically been lower. Now, with coronavirus surging, Trump's desire to see a world that facts make clear doesn't exist is endangering lives in a very real way. And as the coronavirus numbers continue to pile up, Trump's insistence that it's all over (or will be over soon) seems more and more discordant. And, unfortunately, more frequent."

Want to get a nose job? Forget about Houston, Dallas, San Antonio or Austin. Trumpist Governor Greg Abbott has decreed no elective surgeries allowed in Bexar, Dallas, Harris, and Travis counties to preserve beds for coronavirus patients. Sarah Champagne, reporting for the Texas Tribune, wrote than on Thursday morning Abbott announced that he will pause any further phases of reopening Texas although he's doing nothing "to reverse any of the reopening phases he's already allowed for-- meaning that bars, restaurants, malls, bowling alleys and other businesses are still allowed to remain open with some capacity limitations. 'The last thing we want to do as a state is go backwards and close down businesses, ' he wrote in a press release on Thursday, but the 'pause will help our state corral the spread.'" Probably not nearly as much as it would have had he mandated and enforced something as simple as mask-wearing in public. But he didn't-- and won't.

Just Tuesday, Abbott stressed that hospital capacity in Texas was “abundant.” A day later, Abbott acknowledged in a TV interview that capacity issues in some parts of the state "may necessitate a localized strategy" instead of a return to statewide action.

Statewide, the number of hospitalizations has reached record highs for a full two weeks, soaring to 4,739 on Thursday morning and tripling since Memorial Day. On Wednesday, there were 1,320 intensive care unit beds and nearly 13,000 available hospital beds, but with regional disparities.

In hard-hit regions, some hospitals have begun moving coronavirus patients from crowded ICUs to other facilities and local leaders have warned that hospitals could get overwhelmed if the number of infections keeps climbing. In the greater Houston area, the Texas Medical Center warns that the intensive care units are 30 beds away from filling up to their normal capacity. Hospitals and care facilities would then employ their surge plans to build out additional capacity.

Some hospital leaders had also pointed out that treating both patients could become unsustainable: “Should the number of new cases grow too rapidly, it will eventually challenge our ability to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID 19 patients,” Dr. Marc Boom, head of the Houston Methodist hospital system, wrote in an email Friday.

...Laredo's hospitals are also reported to be hitting their ICU capcity. The Laredo TV station KGNS reported Wednesday night that Dr. Victor Treviño, the health authority, has contacted the Commissioner of Texas Department of State Health Services, to fast track the diversion of COVID-19 patients to other hospitals.

Covering this on a national basis for the NY Times, Jack Healy, Mitch Smith and Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio, noted that Americans are facing a new halted reopenings and a sense of limbo, a payment for botching the first spike of the pandemic. "Soaring cases of the coronavirus," they wrote, "are forcing cities and states across the country to halt plans to restart their economies and even reimpose earlier limits on public life, increasing worries that premature reopenings could lead to a second round of closures. In Texas, which reported a record high of more than 5,000 new cases on Tuesday, the governor told local officials they could restrict outdoor gatherings to 100 people and urged residents to stay home. Maine officials called off plans to allow bars to resume serving drinks inside on July 1. The governor of Kansas said rising cases showed that the state was 'not ready' to continue easing restrictions. And in parts of central Idaho, where coronavirus cases have exploded in recent weeks, bars are shutting down and gatherings of more than 50 people are again outlawed.

With the number of new daily cases now rising in more than half of the United States, the debate over whether to reimpose restrictions or push ahead with reopening is creating divides between neighboring cities and states that mirror the scattershot responses that emerged as the country went into lockdown this year.

“There’s very little appetite among the American public to go backwards,” said Michael Mina, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “As reopenings started there were no plans for what would constitute a red flag to close things down. People just said, ‘We’re reopening, everything’s fine, let’s move ahead.’”

Face To Face by Nancy Ohanian

Will Americans start feeling that appetite when the numbers go from 34,000 new cases a day to 100,000? How about when the deaths go from 125,000 to 500,000? No? Will they feel the appetite when they start losing close friends and relatives? Many Americans have a problem thinking abstractly. But they understand what it means when mama or grandpa dies. Or when virtually the whole Clemson football team goes down because 23 players contracted COVID. Kansas State too. At Louisiana State football 30 player are in quarantine. "But public health experts who supported the original shutdowns now worry that governments will not be able to constrain the resurgent coronavirus with a blizzard of shifting restrictions that can change the moment a person crosses a city limit or state line," wrote the Times team. "Hundreds of city, county and state governments have created their own reopening plans, each with different 'phases' of economic reopening and each with their rules for how many people can gather at a party, what portion of a restaurant’s tables can be full and when people must wear masks. The results can be a baffling patchwork, and one that residents are left to navigate on their own. Much of the new tension over the safety of reopening is playing out in the West and South, where the numbers are getting worse, and has split along partisan lines.

The governors of Louisiana and Oregon, both Democrats, recently paused their plans to ease restrictions on businesses and public life, saying it was not yet safe to more fully reopen. And on Tuesday, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington ordered most people to wear face coverings in public.

“It is clear that Covid is alive and well in Louisiana, and as we see more people testing positive and admitted to hospitals, we simply are not ready to move to the next phase,” Gov. John Bel Edwards said, noting that about 90 percent of new cases were coming from spread in the community, not within nursing homes or other group living facilities.

But Republican governors in Florida, Arizona, Texas and other states grappling with rising daily case levels have resisted the prospect of locking down again.

Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas has declined to require Texans to wear masks and said that locking down the state again would be a last resort. But on Tuesday he urged residents to stay home in an interview with the television station KBTX.

“Because the spread is so rampant right now, there is never a reason for you to have to leave your home unless you do need to go out,” he said. “The safest place for you is at your home.”

In Utah, Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, said he had “no plans to shut down Utah’s economy” after the state’s epidemiologist warned that the “only viable option to manage spread and deaths will be a complete shutdown” and urged the governor to reimpose tougher limits on public life.

Shelby County, Tenn., which includes Memphis, was poised to ease its coronavirus restrictions to “phase three” last week, allowing businesses to operate at 75 percent of their normal capacity, but county leaders reconsidered as the number of active cases grew to more than 2,000. Since the start of the pandemic, about 8,000 people have been infected across the county, and 165 have died.

“We ramped up to reopen too quick,” said Tami Sawyer, a county commissioner who has urged the county to impose even tighter limitations. “We weren’t ready.”

With guidance from governments hard to pin down, the burden of deciding whether to stay open or shut down again in the face of a positive coronavirus test is falling on individual businesses.

Restaurants, electronics retailers, salons and bakeries across the country have been reopening only to shut down weeks later after workers or customers report illnesses-- a pattern that business owners fear will repeat itself for months until there is a vaccine or treatment for Covid-19.

In Arizona, Gila River Hotels & Casinos announced on Thursday that three reopened casinos would close again for two weeks because of rising coronavirus cases in the state.

...But even as health officials imposed new restrictions on bars and nightclubs in Boise, conservative state legislators met on Tuesday to rail against what they called an infringement of freedoms because of the pandemic limits. Idaho reported 242 new coronavirus cases on Monday, its highest single-day tally, according to a New York Times database.

“What we’re seeing now is the effects of our earlier phases of reopening,” said Ben Ridenhour, a bio-mathematician and assistant professor at the University of Idaho who has modeled the virus’s course through the state. “It’s a little bit scary. The models are showing things are going to be getting worse unless we do something to rectify the situation.”

COVID doesn't pay attention to politics-- although it does hunt down people walking around without masks. No one picked this to happen and no one predicted the societal side-effects. The coronavirus calls the shots, not us. That's what I keep telling my friends when they ask when we're going to re-book our trip to the Dordogne region of France. Besides... does the virus like caves or hate caves? I'll have to check, but it's moot now because the EU countries are wisely excluding Americans from entering their countries.

Political Soothsayers Are Finally Starting To Read The Tea November Leaves Properly-- Wave Ahoy!

This was a dumb Beltway talking point in February and this headline made me laugh: Republicans sense momentum after impeachment win. Moron talk: "House Republicans believe they are gaining momentum after a terrible week for Democrats and a strong one for President Trump. GOP lawmakers are becoming optimistic they have a chance to pick up seats or even win back the majority in November. Taking back the House would require picking up at least 18 seats and would be a tough climb, but Republicans say the turmoil in the Democratic Party and a strong economy bolstering Trump give them reasons for optimism. Spirits were running high during the House Republican Conference meeting Wednesday morning-- on the heels of Monday’s disastrous Iowa Democratic caucuses and Tuesday night’s State of the Union address and just ahead of Trump’s impeachment acquittal in the Senate-- with some members saying they feel better positioned than they have in recent months. A senior GOP aide who attended the meeting said Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX) told colleagues, 'Let's do what we've been doing, stay on message and we'll get the majority back.'"

It's far more likely that Williams is going to lose his seat to progressive Democrat Julie Oliver than it is that the Republicans will take back the House. In fact, it's far more likely that Williams is going to lose his seat to Oliver than it is that the Republicans won't lose at least a net of another handful of seats. (Please consider helping Julie Oliver beat Roger Williams here.)

Yesterday evening, another Belway stenographer, Chris Cillizza, wrote a post for CNN: How the House is slipping away from Republicans. What is wrong with these people? How hard would it have been to write the headline, "How more House seats are slipping away from Republicans." That might be harder and more challenging for a Beltway stenographer like Cillizza to deal with. What he got from operatives and DCCC and NRCC propaganda departments was that "In the immediate aftermath of President Donald Trump's impeachment and acquittal, Republicans felt very good about their chances of retaking the House majority that they had lost two years earlier. 'I will say that you're going to be speaker of the House because of this impeachment hoax. I really believe it,' Trump told House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy in February. 'And I'm going to work hard on it. I'm going to try and get out to those Trump areas that we won by a lot. And you know, in '18 we didn't win.' On paper, it made sense. [No it didn't.] There are 30 House districts currently held by Democrats that Trump carried in 2016. Win just 20 of those 30 and lose none of their own seats and Republicans are back in control! (Republicans need to net 18 seats to retake the majority.)"

Voters changed their minds because they were sick of Trump. They hate him more now... as well as the Republicans that enable them. So why would they change their minds? Or is Cillizza writing these posts in his sleep? David Wasserman from Cook has another answer that Cillizza used: "Right now, of the 30 Democrats in Trump-won districts, ten lack GOP challengers with more than $250,000 in the bank. And it's going to be nearly impossible to catch up amid a global pandemic."

That's part of Wasserman's broader analysis released this week that makes plain that Republican optimism about their chances of winning back the House this November was deeply off-base.

And not only that! There is now, according to Wasserman, a real chance that Democrats will pick up seats in the House this fall. He writes:

"For the first time this cycle, neither party is a clear favorite to gain House seats this fall. Anything from no net change to a small single-digit gain for either side is possible. That's good news for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats."

The change in the political landscape is due to a variety of factors-- from Joe Biden's emergence as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to House Democrats' massive fundraising edge over their GOP counterparts.

But there is no question a shift has occurred, and it's very much in Democrats' favor.

The Point: There now exists a realistic possibility that Democrats not only win the White House but also consolidate control in the House and Senate in November. Which would be a very big deal.

Marie Newman-- Victorious Against Blue Dog Throwback Dan Lipinski

CNN's Chris Cillizza doesn't mention in this video that the Democrats are more likely to lose more seats than they pick up. Instead he says Republicans don't have enough money to win back a majority and that ether aren't enough opportunities. First off more Republicans have announced retirements (or are otherwise leaving) than Democrats-- 31 to 11. Open seats are usually the easiest to win, although many of the Republicans who are retiring are in deep red, gerrymandered districts. Here's the GOP House count with the PVIs (and the 2016 Trump presidential scores).

• George Holding, NC-02-- (PVI- re-districted), Clinton +24.4
• Mark Walker, NC-06-- (PVI- re-districted), Clinton +21.5
• Will Hurd, TX-23-- (PVI- R+1), Clinton +3.4
• Peter King, NY-02-- (PVI- R+3), Trump +6.1
• Sean Duffy, WI-07-- (PVI- R+8), Trump +20.4
• Susan Brooks, IN-05-- (PVI- R+9), Trump +11.8
• Paul Cook, CA-08-- (PVI- R+9), Trump +15.1
• Rob Woodall, GA-07-- (PVI- R+9), Trump +6.3
• Kenny Marchant, TX-24-- (PVI- R+9), Trump +6.2
• Ted Yoho, FL-03-- (PVI- R+9), Trump +16.0
• Pete Olson, TX-22-- (PVI- R+10), Trump +7.9
• Greg Gianforte, MT-AL-- (PVI- R+11), Trump +20.2
• Duncan Hunter, CA-50-- (PVI- R+11), Trump +14.8
• Greg Walden, OR-02-- (PVI- R+11), Trump +20.1
• Chris Collins, NY-27-- (PVI- R+11), Trump +24.5
• Bill Flores, TX-17-- (PVI- R+12), Trump +17.5
• Paul Mitchell, MI-10-- (PVI- R+13), Trump +32.2
• Jim Sensenbrenner, WI-05-- (PVI- R+13), Trump +20.1
• Bradley Byrne, AL-01-- (PVI- R+15), Trump +29.4
• Martha Roby, AL-02-- (PVI- R+16), Trump +31.9%
• John Shimkus, IL-15-- (PVI- R+21), Trump +46.2
• Francis Rooney, FL-19-- (PVI- R+13), Trump +22.1
• Mark Meadows, NC-11-- (PVI- R+14), Trump +17.3
• Ralph Abraham, LA-05-- (PVI- R+15), Trump +29.4
• Roger Marshall, KS-01-- (PVI- R+24), Trump +45.0
• Rob Bishop, UT-01-- (PVI- R+26), Trump +27.3
• Tom Graves, GA-14-- (PVI- R+27), Trump +52.9
• Phil Roe, TN-01-- (PVI- R+28), Trump +57.0
• Doug Collins, GA-09-- (PVI- R+31), Trump +58.5
• Mike Conaway, TX-11-- (PVI- R+32), Trump +58.7
• Mac Thornberry, TX-13-- (PVI- R+33), Trump +63.0

The only Democratic open seats that are competitive are IA-02, Dave Loebsack's which has a PVI of D+1 but was won by Trump by 4.1% and CA-25, Katie Hill's with an even PVI, won by Hillary by 6.7%. About half the open Republican seats are vaguely competitive, not counting the two redistricted seats in North Carolina, which are solid blue.

Before we even know who the nominees are in most districts, it's foolish to try to predict which seats will flip from red to blue or blue to red. But we'll keep watching. Today Oklahoma progressive Tom Guild, going up an even worse conservative Blue Dog than Lipinski is-- Kendra Horn-- told us that "Marie’s upset victory over Lipinski is a stunning win and an object lesson. When good progressive candidates have adequate funding and strong support from leaders of the progressive movement, they are able to unseat blue dogs and other assorted conservatives in the vice grip of ruling political elitists. In many cases these corporate conservatives are better fits with the Republican or Libertarian Parties. They often give the establishment two bites at the apple. If the Republicans loses, they can then turn to corporate Democrats, who are in all but name philosophically Republicans. It took Marie several attempts and she came very close to winning the seat two years ago. She had the determination and commitment it takes to focus on a daunting task and successfully achieve her objective. We have strong and principled progressive candidates, many endorsed by Blue America, who match Marie in that they have the guts needed to slay the dragon, but they may not have adequate campaign funds and/or the widespread support of the recognized leaders and organizations in our progressive movement. We are family. As our movement matures and expands its reach to give maximum support to many quality and hard-working progressive candidates, we will achieve many amazing and shocking victories across America. Many of us pray for God to grant us patience as we exhort Him to please hurry!"

Last night we were overjoyed to see IL-03 flip from purple to blue, as solid progressive Democrat Marie Newman beat Trump-friendly Blue Dog Dan Lipinski 48,677 (47.08%) to 36,677 (44.76%). As Tom said, it took Marie two cycles-- which is the normal way congressional districts are won. As of the February 26 FEC reporting deadline, Lipinski had spent $1,348,228 and Marie had spent $1,193,371. Thanks to everyone who chipped in through Blue America to make this fantastic win possible. Four more candidates on the verge-- who, like Marie, did well against conservative incumbents last time and look like they can win this time-- are J.D. Scholten (running against Steve King in Iowa), Mike Siegel (running against Michael McCaul in Texas), Audrey Denney (running against Doug LaMalfa in California) and Kara Eastman (running against Donald Bacon in Nebraska). They are all very much investing in-- for a better America-- and that's why the 2020 Blue America congressional thermometer is on the right. Please click on it and contribute what you can to one of them or all of them-- or to Marie.

14 Million People Watched The Debate Thursday-- Enough To Lower Biden's Irrational Standing In The Polls?

Right after the Thursday night ABC News debate ended, CNN.com published a column by their in-house pundit Chris Cillizza asserting that Biden was a winner and Elizabeth Warren a loser. Many decades ago I was managing local San Francisco bands. One of them was The Readymades and I had booked them an opening slot for a big touring band-- maybe Roxy Music?-- at a bigger venue than they usually played. I was disappointed when the top critics in town for the big newspaper didn't show up. However, towards the end of the headliner's show he made his entrance and came right over to me and asked me how the show had gone. I told him how great my band was-- a somewhat biased report-- and how the two bands were a perfect match. That review appeared in the newspaper the next day. I can't imagine that Cillizza actually watched the debate and came away with the idea that Biden did better than Warren; I wonder if it was Biden's campaign manager told him that was the case.

The following morning Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent did a more thought-provoking piece on the debate, Think Castro Was 'Mean' To Biden? Get Ready For An Absolute Bloodbath. "Biden's Democratic rivals," he wrote, "have now begun to raise questions about his age and mental competence. But they are doing so ever so gingerly, and even apologetically. President Trump is not being nearly as cautious or circumspect. In that contrast resides something that deserves more attention about the Biden age issue. The question isn’t merely whether Biden has the stamina for a grueling campaign, or whether Biden will be able to handle debates with Trump. It’s also whether Biden or indeed other Democrats are prepared for the massive onslaught of absolutely brutal and distortive attacks that Trump and his propaganda apparatus will wage on this particular front-- attacks that you can be certain will include all sorts of shamelessly propagandistic media manipulation and outright disinformation tactics."

James Hohmann also covered the Castro attack on Biden: "Castro follows in the footsteps of Eric Swalwell, who ripped into Biden and told him to 'pass the torch' during the first debate only to get nowhere. The California congressman dropped out days later. Castro certainly won’t. This isn’t fatal. But the exchange illustrated Biden’s underappreciated strengths. While he’s widely perceived as having a tenuous lead in the early polls, Biden’s support has thus far proven remarkably durable. At the same time, however, Castro broached an issue that is of genuine concern among many Democratic leaders and may have foreshadowed what’s to come as the field winnows and lower-performing candidates become desperate to break through.”

As the Boston Herald reported this week, "Biden has lost his lead in New Hampshire with U.S. Sen Bernie Sanders jumping ahead in what is now clearly a three-person race for the Democratic primary, a new Franklin Pierce University-Boston Herald poll shows. Sanders tops the poll at 29% of likely Democratic primary voters. Biden comes in second with 21% of the vote and Massachusetts U.S. Sen Elizabeth Warren is third in the poll with 17%.

And it isn't just New Hampshire Where Biden Is No Longer "Frontrunner"

And that was before Biden flopped Thursday night. Politico's John Harris: "Biden’s previous uneven performances didn’t dislodge him atop the race, and so caution is justified in predicting bleeding wounds from this one. Even so, discursive answers on substantive issues like deportation of undocumented immigrants and Afghanistan, an oddly dated reference to a 'record player,' disrespectful digs and patronizing swipes from rivals, all raise the question: Can he withstand four more months of this before actual Democratic voting begins?”

Eric Levitz asked the question all Democratic primary voters need to ask themselves: Would You Leave Joe Biden Alone With Trump? Levitz's 3 main takeaways from the debate that Cillizza thought Biden won: "The Democratic front-runner cannot speak in complete sentences when he is feeling tired or defensive. And 90 minutes of debate is enough to make him tired. And a reference to something that he said about race in the 1970s is enough to make him defensive." They left him feeling "rather apprehensive about the prospect of the Democrats sending Joe Biden into battle against Donald Trump next year. A three-hour debate can be tiring. But a 14-month campaign would seem considerably more so. If Biden can’t keep his talking points straight for an entire evening, what shape will he be in after running the gauntlet between today and his televised showdowns with the president next fall? And if a pointed question from an ABC News anchor can reduce him to spasms of anxious blather, how well will he hold up when Trump comes after his family? ...To my eyes, the following exchange between Biden and ABC News’ Linsey Davis on the question of our collective responsibility for slavery reads like dialogue from an obscure Beckett play-- but to an objective observer, perhaps this reads as a thoughtful, cogent answer from a man manifestly equipped to be the next president of the United States:"

Linsey Davis: Mr. Vice-President, I want to talk to you about inequality in schools and race. In a conversation about how to deal with segregation in schools back in 1975, you told a reporter “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation, and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.” You said that some 40 years ago, but as you stand here tonight, what responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?

Joe Biden: Well, they have to deal with the … Look, there is institutional segregation in this country. And from the time I got involved, I started dealing with that. Redlining, banks, making sure that we are in a position where-- Look, we talk about education. I propose that what we take is those very poor schools, the Title 1 schools, triple the amount of money we spend from $15 to $45 billion a year. Give every single teacher a raise to the equal of … A raise of getting out of the $60,000 level.


Number two, make sure that we bring in to the help with the stud-- the teachers deal with the problems that come from home. The problems that come from home, we need … We have one school psychologist for every 1,500 kids in America today. It’s crazy. The teachers are required-- I’m married to a teacher. My deceased wife is a teacher. They have every problem coming to them.

Make sure that every single child does, in fact, have three, four, and five-year-olds go to school. School! Not daycare, school. We bring social workers into homes of parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It’s not want they don’t want to help. They don’t know want-- They don’t know what quite what to do. Play the radio. Make sure the television-- excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night. The phone-- make sure the kids hear words. A kid coming from a very poor school-- er, a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time they get there.

Davis: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.

Biden: No, I’m going to go like the rest of them do, twice over, okay? Because here’s the deal. The deal is that we’ve got this a little backwards. And by the way, in Venezuela, we should be allowing people to come here from Venezuela. I know Maduro. I’ve confronted Maduro. Number two, you talk about the need to do something in Latin America. I’m the guy that came up with $740 million to see to it those three countries, in fact, change their system so people don’t have to chance to leave. You’re all acting like we just discovered this yesterday! Thank you very much.

This is what President Obama had in mind when he warned Biden to think long and hard before running and embarrassing himself and his family. Levitz wrote that nominating Biden is "a needlessly risky bet to make, given the party’s myriad other options. Polling continues to indicate that, contrary to conventional pundit wisdom, Bernie Sanders is a formidable general-election candidate. Elizabeth Warren’s favorability has steadily increased throughout the duration of her campaign, as has her standing against Trump in the polls. But if you are more moderate in your ideological sympathies, or nervous about nominating someone 'too progressive,' there are plenty of sharper centrists you can back. Cory Booker is a gifted orator. Amy Klobuchar is good at winning elections in the Midwest. Beto O’Rourke is tall. Before Thursday, none of Biden’s ideologically sympathetic competitors had dared to explicitly sell themselves as a more mentally 'with it' alternative to Uncle Joe. But after Julián Castro (clumsily) went there during the debate, Booker embraced the 'many people are saying Joe Biden’s lost a few steps' line of attack."

My one fear is that a Trump-Biden general election will hinge about which one is more senile and which one lies more. What could possibly discourage voters from bothering to turn out? Nielsen reported that the debate had 14 million viewers on ABC and Univision, beating everything else on TV. Millions more watched on their computers. I suspect that "Sleepy Joe" could never hold up against Trump. Tom McCarthy, reporting for The Guardian wrote that "while Castro’s attack on Biden might not have landed, the frontrunner repeatedly seemed to fumble the facts: he at one point mistakenly referred to Sanders as the president, he badly botched the name of the Moms Demand Action gun safety group and he said nonviolent offenders shouldn’t be in prison when he (apparently, aides later said) meant nonviolent drug offenders. When he got in trouble, Biden got punchier, and sometimes wilder, with an answer on education confusingly swerving into the previous topic, Venezuela and foreign policy.

Jacobin's Branko Marcetic wrote that we all know how these debates go: "moderators will drape a right-wing framing around their questions, almost everyone will attack Medicare for All, and Joe Biden will misrepresent his record." He conceded that Thursday night Biden's performance was "surprisingly nondisastrous... By clearing the extremely low bar of appearing coherent and not having any of his body parts malfunction on stage, Biden has already been awarded top marks for his performance, even declared the winner. But it’s important to remember that Biden’s performance rested on a patina of lies. Challenged by moderator Jorge Ramos on the distinctly Trumpian nature of the 'Obama-Biden' administration’s immigration policies, Biden dubbed the comparison 'outrageous.' 'We didn’t lock people up in cages,' he said. 'We didn’t separate families.' Both are untrue."

As fact-checkers quickly pointed out, Obama and Biden infamously did detain immigrants, including children, in cages. And while it’s true the administration didn’t make snatching children from migrants an official policy as Trump has, breaking families apart, sometimes permanently, was a cornerstone of the Obama-Biden approach to immigration, usually by arresting and simply disappearing the undocumented parents of US citizen children, but also, under the Alien Transfer and Exit Program, by separating families traveling together at the border, including minors. Pressed by Ramos for dodging the question, which asked if Biden and Obama had made a mistake by deporting as many people as they did, Biden was forced to re-endorse the policy, saying that Obama “did the best thing that was able to be done at the time.”

When the issues of mass incarceration and segregation came up, always fraught territory for Biden, the former vice president engaged in more rewriting of history. “I’ve been involved from the beginning,” he said about the fight for black civil rights, later repeating that “from the time I got involved, I started dealing with” institutional segregation.

This, too, is false. Biden was reviled by educators and the civil rights community for the Biden-Eagleton amendment, passed in 1977, which forbade what was then the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to spend money on school busing. In 1980, the Education Commission of the States voted to declare the amendment the most “far-reaching” legislative roadblock to civil rights enforcement. On the 25th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1979, the Civil Rights Commission published a report that bitterly noted the lack of progress on desegregation and specifically criticized the law. The commission’s chairman charged it had “aided and abetted” anti-integrationist forces, called for its repeal, and labeled it “one of, if not the major civil rights issues confronting the country at this time.” Political scientist Stephen C. Halpern called it a “death knell” for the use of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s Title VI in education, and it ground desegregation efforts to a halt around the country, including in Chicago. Ironically, it had no effect on the court-ordered busing initiative in Biden’s hometown of Wilmington, the ostensible reason he had crafted the amendment.

In the process, Biden staked out a position on desegregation that was far from liberal. He nonsensically claimed there was a “conceptual difference between desegregation and integration,” charged integration with being “racist and insulting” in some of its forms, and even said that integrating people “so that they all have the same access and they learn to grow up with one another and all the rest” was a “rejection of the whole movement of black pride.” As he explained to the attendees of a fundraising dinner in 1975, the liberal idea that the United States owed its strength to its status as a “great melting pot” was “a bunch of poppycock because we know being black and white and Christian and Jew breaks us apart.” By the time Biden, who entered the Senate with a reputation as a civil rights advocate, ran for president in 1986, his hometown paper noted his major legislative accomplishment was arguably a tough-on-crime law he had authored with former segregationist Strom Thurmond.

With a history like this, it’s hardly surprising Biden would gloss over it.

Mueller's Live Statement Yesterday Was Aimed At Congress, Especially House Democrats And Their Cowardly Leaders

In a move that perfectly mimics Orwell's Ministry of Truth, the Trumpist Regime has begun calling toxic hydrocarbon pollutants "molecules of freedom." So why should it surprise any one that Señor Trumpanzee himself, moments after watching Mueller give that televised statement above, tweeted/gaslighted something that could have come from an alternative universe?

The case is anything but closed and the Trumpist Regime then almost immediately issued an official press statement from Sister Sarah to further muddy the waters and confuse the already-- and always easily-- confused Trump supporters and media partners:

You watched, I watched, we all watched it. A few moments after Mueller addressed the nation, Briana Urbina, the progressive woman running for the Maryland congressional seat occupied with anti-impeachment coward Steny Hoyer told me that "This congress under Steny Hoyer's 'leadership' is failing to protect the American people and carrying water for Trump every day that we do not initiate impeachment hearings. How do we expect to distinguish ourselves from the Republicans if we do not take bold action to promote the rule of law and preserve our democracy? I am not afraid of the political consequences that impeachment may bring and those who care to seek justice should not let politics from carrying out their constitutional duties as elected members of Congress." Michigan Republican Justin Amash tweeted 7 words to his colleagues on Capitol Hill: "The ball is in our court, Congress." I wonder if the failed Democratic Speaker follows him on Twitter. I doubt it.

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)-- who many members are hoping runs for Speaker in 2021-- put out a strong and unambiguous statement:

Today, Special Counsel Robert Mueller powerfully stated a key finding of his two-year investigation: “If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” He once again reiterated that he was unable to exonerate the president of committing any crimes. He made it clear that he abided by Department of Justice guidelines that state a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime through an investigation alone, but clearly laid out the evidence for multiple potential obstruction of justice acts by the President. He also made it crystal clear that the responsibility of holding a President to account for any crimes committed must-- according to the Constitution-- fall to Congress.

The Special Counsel’s office did their job; now it’s time for Congress to do our job. We will continue the essential work of oversight with hearings and enforcing subpoenas to get testimony from key witnesses. No one is above the law, and Congress must respond with full force to the President's abuses of power, repeated cover-ups and ongoing obstruction of justice.

In addition, Special Counsel Mueller drew special attention to the critical need to address the report’s conclusions around “multiple, systematic efforts by Russian intelligence to interfere in our election.” We will continue to demand that Congress act in a bipartisan manner to force the President and Republicans in the Senate to immediately attend to this matter. Republicans must decide whether they intend to condone the President’s ongoing refusal to hold Russia to account or protect the integrity of our election process.

Writing for CNN.com, Chris Cillizza took it on himself to translate Mueller's legalese for non-lawyers. He wrote that Mueller "emphasized two things of real importance-- both of which, with a bit of reading between the lines, provided a glimpse into what Mueller really thinks regarding Trump and obstruction. Here they are:

• "If we had had confidence that the President had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so."
• "Charging the President with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."

[I]t's impossible to dismiss the fact that Mueller called out specifically the report's finding that the President had not been exonerated on obstruction. In fact, Mueller reiterated the fact that, had his office been able to exonerate Trump, they would have done that. And they did not.

...Mueller said flatly Wednesday that the reason that the special counsel's office did not consider charging Trump with obstruction was because it was not an option he was allowed to consider under Justice Department precedent.

...What Mueller was saying Wednesday is actually better understood by what he was not saying-- and what he was not saying was that the President of the United States was an innocent victim in all of this... Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction by the President. Mueller didn't say he wouldn't have charged Trump even without the guiding OLC ruling. And in so doing, he said a whole hell of a lot.

The NY Times headline was more succinct: Mueller, in First Comments on Russia Inquiry, Declines to Clear Trump.

David Frum, like Amash, a Republican who hasn't been amused by Trump's extra-constitutional approach to his duties, reiterated yesterday that the words of the Mueller report themselves are "damning." And what did Mueller say today if not to read the damn report?

“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” Mueller wrote. This help “favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

The Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” and it “welcomed” this help.

There is insufficient evidence to accuse the Trump campaign of criminal conspiracy with its Russian benefactors. However, “the social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.”

These contacts were covered up by a series of lies, both to the special counsel and to Congress. Lying by the Trump campaign successfully obscured much of what happened in 2016. The special counsel in some cases “was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.” In particular, the investigation never did determine what happened to proprietary Trump-campaign polling data shared with the Russians.

Within hours of the appointment of a special counsel to investigate 2016 events, Trump began defaming him. Trump had already fired the FBI director who investigated these events. His first order to fire the special counsel appointed in the director’s place was issued on June 17, 2017, a month after Mueller’s appointment. That order would be followed by many more. Trump directed his staff to lie about these orders.

Over and above his efforts to fire the special counsel, “the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

The subversion of the investigation was brazen. “Many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view.”

Obstruction of justice, though, need not be clandestine to count as a crime. What matters is intent—and that must be judged by Congress, not a special counsel subordinate to the Department of Justice and bound by its rule that a president cannot be indicted.

The full report is rich with details. But that’s the essence. A foreign power interfered in the U.S. election to help the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign welcomed the help and repeatedly lied about it. The lying successfully obscured some questions the investigation sought to answer; in the end, it found insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. President Trump, in public and in private, worked to stop the investigation.

Those are the facts. What are the remedies? Mueller underscored at his press statement: He did not exonerate the president. Under the Department of Justice rules he was subject to, he lacked the power to act.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration refuses to take steps to secure the next presidential election against the interference that swayed the last. The question of why Russia so strongly wished to help Trump remains as mysterious as ever. In particular, if you wish to understand the breadth and depth of Trump’s Russian business connections before he declared for president in 2015, Mueller’s report will not help you.

Mueller says he can do no more. The rest, Congress, is up to you.

Mike Siegel is the progressive Democrat in TX-10 running for the seat held by Trump enabler Michael McCaul. Siegel didn't beat around the bush after carefully listening to Mueller yesterday. He told us that "Time is of the essence. Congress must fulfill its constitutional duty as a check and balance. Only by honoring the work of the Special Counsel, and beginning an impeachment inquiry, can we we re-assert the rule of law and assure the American people that we have a functioning democracy."

Eva Putzova's opponent is a Blue Dog Democrat who opposes impeachment, "ex"-Republican Tom O'Halleran. Eva's vision is filled with clarity. "There are numerous instances in Mueller’s report," she told me, "that provides evidence that Trump and his cronies tried to obstruct Mueller’s investigation into the Russian military’s interference in the 2016 election. In my view that constitutes 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' under our constitution and that mandates impeachment. It is time for the House of Representatives to begin with the proceedings."

Even Status Quo Joe, who I would expect to pardon Trump and his spawn if-- God forbid-- he ever gets into the White House, issued an almost, nearly, close to semi-quasi-pro-ish impeachment statement yesterday.

Would You Want To Elect Cersei President?

This morning's Boston Globe carried a review of last night's Game of Throne that might make someone in a Trumpian world mindset think Pakistan and India were at war again or that China just finally got even with Japan for World War II. "Dany had a hissy fit," wrote Matthew Gilbert, "and it turned King’s Landing into a charred and dead-main-character-filled mess. She even managed to make Cersei cry real tears-- no easy feat-- as the pregnant monarch saw her dreams come down to smoke and ash before her very eyes. Girl, you lost it-- your temper, your dignity, and your humanity. Put a messianic wannabe on the back of a presumably grieving dragon, and the result was an episode that doubled as a kind of apocalyptic battle of the queens, as Daenerys and Cersei faced off-- one atop her only winged child, the other atop her tower-- without ever facing each other, a pair of fierce rulers who’ve chosen fear over love." I hope you enjoyed the second-to-last episode. If you did, you might also enjoy reading Chris Cillizza's CNN piece comparing the 2020 candidates with GOT characters. Perhaps, though, you'd be offended that he casts Status Quo Joe as Cersei Lannister. "Both," wrote Cillizza, "are the de facto incumbents, relying on their inherent knowledge of the system and an air of inevitability to stay on top. But both know their enemies are coming for them-- and that doubts remain as to whether they can hang onto power." Sounds about right... But why not Trump? That's just another thing he and Biden have in common.

Last week Biden actually was in Hollywood, collecting money from the rich and brainless-- raked in close to a million dollars at his big Jeffrey Katzenberg/Peter Chernin/Rob Reiner fundraiser at the home of Michael Smith and James Costo last Wednesday.

On Friday, The Nation published a piece by Bob Borosage, Joe Biden Is a Bad Bet, making the point that "far from being the safest choice, Biden lacks the economic vision necessary to counter Trump." As Courtenay Brown wrote for Axios yesterday America's booming economy is Trump’s 2020 tailwind. "Every incumbent president since FDR who has avoided a recession in the lead-up to an election year was re-elected. More Americans are saying they approve of President Trump's handling of the economy, even though they disapprove overall. 51% of people disapprove of Trump's job performance in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll out last week, but 51% approve of him on the economy. If he loses, it would be a big break with recent history." Lobbyist Bruce Mehlman remarked that "Many voters are willing to forgive the noise (political incorrectness, tweets, Mueller) as long as the signal (economy) stays strong."

With the Republicans claiming credit for the economy, Borosage wrote that "the Democrats lining up to support former vice president Joe Biden as the most electable opponent to Trump have got it wrong."

Trump can’t resist exaggerating the economic news, but there is much to boast about. Unemployment is at its lowest level since 1969, with job openings exceeding the numbers looking for work. Hispanic and African-American unemployment rates, while still dramatically higher than the white rate, have hit record lows during Trump’s tenure.

Trump, of course, is a bit like a drunk jumping on a street car headed downhill who thinks he’s driving with his foot on the gas. He claims that his deregulation, his tax cuts, and his trade policies have made the difference. With the China trade deficit reaching a new height last year, the tax benefits going overwhelmingly to the already rich, and the deregulation blitz only beginning to take effect, his claims are a reach. But whether from good fortune or good policy, he can and will take credit from voters.

As Trump barrels forward, Democrats are engaged in a furious argument over how to stop him. Many Democratic primary voters indicate they are ready to support the candidate most likely to defeat Trump, even over their personal favorite. Joe Biden has become the early front-runner because of a widespread sense that he is the “safest bet” to defeat Trump. Experienced and moderate, “Scranton Joe” is credited with having a special appeal to the white working-class voters that went to Trump, particularly in the key swing Midwestern states.

Making the case for Biden, Andrew Sullivan dismisses arguments that he is too white, too old, too “handsy,” and too compromised to win. Sullivan maintains that Trump will turn out the Democratic base for any candidate, while Biden can appeal to moderate voters, notably non-college-educated white men. Biden enjoys the imprimatur, if not the endorsement, of one of the most popular Democrats, Barack Obama. A good portion of the party’s institutional centers-- the money, the operatives, the union and establishment leaders-- are rallying to his banner.

In fact, rather than the “safest bet,” Biden is more likely to end up the worst of all worlds-- unable either to excite the emerging Democratic coalition of young people, minorities, and women or to win back the Obama-Trump working-class voters. He could easily become the Democratic equivalent of Bob Dole, the hapless Republican Senate leader who lost badly to Bill Clinton’s reelection bid.

If the growing economy is Trump’s calling card, it is also his greatest vulnerability. This economy is about as good as it gets, and it still doesn’t work for most Americans. Wages have begun to stir but aren’t close to making up for the stagnation of the past decades. The costs of basics-- health care, prescription drugs, housing, child care, college-- are all rising faster than wages. College debt now totals over $1.6 trillion, with more and more families simply unable to afford to send their kids to school. Nearly 30 million lack health coverage, an increase of at least 7 million since Trump’s election. Tens of millions more can’t afford the care they need. Nearly one in five black families and one in seven Latino families are in debt or have zero net wealth. Trump chose to pass top-end tax cuts instead of rebuilding our decrepit and increasingly dangerous infrastructure. For all of his posturing, his 2016 jibe-- that now we build cars in Mexico and you can’t drink the water in Flint-- is still true.

Beneath the populist packaging, Trump’s basic policies-- top-end tax cuts, deregulation driven by corporate lobbyists, and a government open for business-- are standard Republican fare, feeding inequality and corporate plunder. The central task of the Democratic standard-bearer in 2020 will be to expose Trump’s con by showing that even in the best of times, the economy is still rigged against most Americans-- and Trump is adding to the fix-- while offering a compelling agenda for change.

The essence of the Biden candidacy, however, is restoration-- a promise of a return to the “normalcy” of the Obama years. That appeals to centrist Democrats, but it also makes Biden the perfect foil for Trump to run against. To counter Biden, Trump could position himself once more as the insurgent, the agent of change against a failed establishment.

On the stump, Trump brandishes his aggressive trade policies as proof of his populist credibility. “The era of economic surrender is over,” he claimed at his recent rally in Panama City, Florida, indicting the Obama administration and its predecessor for “decades of calamitous trade policies that enrich Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.”

In contrast to Trump’s isolationist rhetoric, Biden is an avowed “free trader” and has supported NAFTA, the TPP, and China in the WTO. Given his record, he has little choice but to try to defend the indefensible. This won’t go well. Already at a stop in Iowa, Biden lamely dismissed the Chinese challenge, arguing that it was implausible that Beijing would “eat our lunch” and that China was “not competition for us.”

Trump offers a populist explanation about why this economy is rigged against what he calls “the invisible people.” Echoing Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, he rails against the entrenched “elite” who rigged the rules and allowed other countries-- China, NATO allies, NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada-- to “rip off the US.”

In his first public rally at a Teamsters hall in Pittsburgh, Biden tried out his populist voice, scorning Trump for the tax cuts, indicting CEOs for their greed, voicing his solidarity with unions, and pledging to rebuild the middle class. “How did we get to this place,” he asked, where so many people across America “don’t think we see them?”

He never answered the question. Instead, he reiterated that “we’re tearing America apart instead of lifting it up” and suffering from a “broken political system that’s deliberately being undermined by our president to continue to abuse the power of the office.” But Trump is a symptom, not the source of America’s political and economic problems-- and surely those who chose to vote for Trump after voting for Obama know it.

Worse, Biden really doesn’t have much to say about how to make the economy work for working people. It’s still early, but Biden isn’t a big policy maven and isn’t likely to lay out a bold agenda for the future. He’s already suggested that all Democrats “agree on basically everything, all of us running-- all 400 of us.” He embraces the $15 minimum wage from Bernie’s agenda, calls for reversing Trump’s tax cuts, touts a public option for health insurance over Medicare for All, and waves vaguely at making college and training affordable. His agenda will fill out over time, but his appeal is less about the future than about ending the Trump “aberration” and returning to the status quo.

But elections, in the end, are always about the future. Democrats won’t beat Trump simply because of his personal corruptions, nor can they count on demography to carry their cause. They would be ill-advised to pick a candidate who champions a restoration to the past. Democrats need a leader who can puncture Trump’s populist con and lay out a bold vision and agenda for change. Joe Biden has many strengths, but that isn’t among them.