Cook: Trump Is Dragging Down Republican Candidates With Him

Cook is usually a lagging indicator. They do not move on a dime. If they move a race from "leans Republican" to "toss up," it probably means you should expect a big loss for the GOP. Yesterday, Amy Walter, one of their top prognosticators, used the word "tsunami." It's July; I would interpret that to mean Cook foresees a mass GOP drowning in November-- an actual; threat to to basic well-being of the party's existence. This isn't just about swing states and swing districts-- you can start anticipating painful Republican losses in "solid red" states like Alaska, Texas, Arizona, Georgia and Montana. And that isn't just about electoral votes but about Republicans up for reelection-- or running for-- congressional and state and county legislative seats as well. "This election," wrote Walter, "is looking more like a Democratic tsunami than simply a Blue wave. President Trump, mired in some of the lowest job approval ratings of his presidency, is trailing Biden by significant margins in key battleground states like Pennsylvania (8 points), Michigan (9 points), and Wisconsin (9 points). He’s even running behind Biden in his firewall states of Florida and North Carolina."

She doesn't understand the difference between a Blue wave and an anti-red wave. There's no enthusiasm for Biden or the crappy party he "leads." All the enthusiasm is for stuffing Trump down a toilet and flushing. But the Beltway insiders will never understand that and will continue babbling like chimps about "a Blue wave." Fine, who cares; it ends up with the same results anyway.

Cook changed some of their electoral college predictions "to reflect this reality." All have moved towards the Democrats and all are laughably behind reality. Their best predictions are always the day after the election anyway. They move Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska’s 2nd district from toss up to lean Democrat. And Maine, which for whatever insane reason, was in the lean Democrat column moved to likely Democrat. Cook is so funny. They also moved Maine's 2nd district from likely Republican to just lean Republican. And she wrote that "Georgia has joined Arizona, North Carolina and Florida in the Toss Up column, although, at this point, Biden would be slightly favored to win at least Arizona and Florida."

Even Republican strategists she spoke with understand that Trump has now reached "a permanent loss of trust and faith of the majority of voters. In talking with strategists on both sides this last week, it’s also clear that Trump is dragging Republican congressional candidates with him as well. Plugged in strategists on both sides tell us that Trump is running behind in districts he easily carried in 2016. As one GOP strategist told us this week, 'I’d be surprised if any House GOP challenger is able to outperform Trump-- they are tied to him.' Meanwhile, Democratic Senate candidates-- even those in second and third-tier races-- are pulling in eye-popping second-quarter fundraising totals."




I spoke to a handful of candidates running strong in prohibitively red districts. Iowa progressive, J.D. Scholten, pointed out that his right-wing Trumpist opponent, Randy Feenstra "ran his primary campaign on the theme that he's best positioned to 'deliver' for Trump. But Trump's policies have systematically ravaged Iowa's farmers and rural communities in everything from the disastrous trade war to abuses of the Renewable Fuel Standard to corporate bailouts. Iowans don't need nor want another career politician who's beholden to corporate interests and afraid to stand up to power. We understand why folks voted for Trump-- they were looking for change and solutions, but unfortunately, that's not what we got. Our campaign is gaining traction with Trump voters, Republicans, and voters across the political spectrum because we're fighting for them: farmers, workers, and rural communities."

Georgia progressive Lisa Ring told me that through her experiences she's concluded that the most dangerous thing we can do is assume we can predict political outcomes. "Every action," she said, "has the potential of harming or propelling a campaign but the ever-changing nature of politics renders an important development, insignificant within hours. In general, the failures of the Trump administration should be harmful to every legislator or candidate who remains loyal to it. However, it is what Democrats choose to do with the failings of the GOP that will make a difference. Or not.

"Simply pointing out that Rep. Buddy Carter is a Trump lackey who has followed his every direction in order to gain Trump’s official endorsement, is not enough," she continued. "Instead, I must remind the people of my district that Carter and Trump worked hand in hand to destroy the middle class, working class, and disadvantaged, by taking away whatever healthcare they had, letting small businesses fail, allowing our infrastructure to crumble, protections to be rolled back, and failing the millions of unemployed, as well as the millions of infected Americans who were provided no assistance and no leadership during a pandemic that is not even close to being over. 2016 and beyond, should have taught us not to rely on polls or predictors, but rather to continue to focus on the issues, and reach voters one on one. These times are unprecedented and we cannot sit back and analyze with numbers, beliefs that defy all reason. Instead let us hit the streets(virtually, if it must be) and connect truthfully to people who need answers and solutions to the very real problems they face daily."

Texan Julie Oliver shared something that has changed in a pretty big way since the 2018 campaign. "What we’ve seen over the last two election cycles is a growing number of 'independent' voters in TX-25. Some folks share that they’re former Republicans who have lost their party and will never vote for another Trumpublican, like Rep. Roger Williams, again. Sometimes we encounter these newly independent voters when we are phone-banking, or in the pre-pandemic world when we were able to canvass, but what we are seeing in this election cycle that really didn’t happen in the midterms is that many former Republicans reach out to our campaign unsolicited."

Yesterday, Astead Herndon wrote specifically about the Trumpist base in Georgia and Arizona being nonplussed about the GOP establishment Senate candidates. "Many Republican candidates face a perplexing electoral landscape this year, given that Mr. Trump’s conduct has endeared him to the party’s most conservative groups, but has soured some suburban moderates and seniors who are vital parts of any swing state coalition. These candidates are walking a tightrope, made more difficult by a voter base that doesn’t just want to elect Republicans, but rather loyal foot soldiers who take on Mr. Trump’s political and cultural enemies. It is the long-term political war over how Trumpism is best expressed-- not the short-term battle over Mr. Trump himself-- and how a party that has been driven by early-morning tweets for four years will seek to survive the next 40."

In the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections, a record number of House Republicans chose not to seek re-election rather than face conflict with the conservative base, and even a favorable Senate map saw Republicans lose in states like Arizona and Nevada.

With Mr. Trump on the ballot this year, it will be even harder for candidates to paper over the differences, and the uneasy relationship between the party’s most right-wing voters and the statewide Republicans like Ms. Loeffler and Ms. McSally who rely on their votes is bursting into the open.

Governors in both Arizona and Georgia are currently confronting this political challenge, after opening up their states’s economies at the urging of the president and those in the media who support him, only to face pressure to reverse course after coronavirus cases surged.

Polling also shows that Ms. Loeffler and Ms. McSally are underdogs in their respective races, facing an energized Democratic electorate in addition to their inner-party wrangling.

...A recent survey of Arizona voters from the New York Times and Siena College found Ms. McSally trailing her Democratic opponent, the former astronaut and U.S. Navy Captain Mark Kelly, by nine percentage points.

In a recent Fox News poll of the Arizona race, just 73 percent of Republicans supported Ms. McSally, while 88 percent of Democrats supported Mr. Kelly.

“They don’t buy her as a bona fide very conservative Republican,” said Chuck Coughlin, a longtime Republican political consultant in Arizona.

The candidates’ struggles speak to how real divisions among Republicans have been obscured by Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016, and could erupt again should he lose in November.

...Several Republicans in Arizona and Georgia said in interviews that the problem is not with Ms. Loeffler’s or Ms. McSally’s messages, but whether the base is buying the candidates as authentic.  As a sign of their shared troubles among Republicans, some of the most negative publicity for both senators in the past year has come courtesy of Fox News, the cable outlet that is often sympathetic to the president.

...“The electorate has changed a lot,” Mr. Coughlin said, adding that the current Republican Party has “moved away from that narrative that people were originally attracted to. And in my view, has become one that’s reactive to the identity politics of the left.”

Steve Bullock Is More Popular Than Either Steve Daines Or Señor Trumpanzee In Montana

Let me have a little LOL moment. On May 1, I wrote that "2020 will be another big anti-red wave. The media isn't talking about it yet-- they're a lagging indicator-- but they will." Sabato's Crystal Ball had just explained why they were still betting on the Montana Senate seat to stay red. "Gov. Steve Bullock’s (D-MT) late entry into the race last month prevented first-term Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) from coasting to reelection: We were prepared to move the race to Safe Republican prior to Bullock’s entry; we now list it as Leans Republican. Based on what we can piece together, the race seems like it’s neck and neck at the moment. But does that actually make it a Toss-up? We are not quite there yet."

Of course not. They'll be truly ready when AP calls the race for Bullock on election night. Even then, polling showed that Montana voters like Bullock (49%) better than Daines (45%)-- and that Daines (42%) have slightly higher unfavorables than Bullock (40%) and that in a head-to-head matchup it was an exact 47-47% tie. Doesn't that define the toss-up that Sabato was unwilling to call the race?

Instead, Sabato used "history" to suggest Bullock will lose: "[I]t is very rare for an incumbent senator to lose reelection while that senator’s party is winning the state for president. There are only four examples of that happening in the last seven presidential election cycles, and there were confounding circumstances in three of those four races. Donald Trump would really have to crater in order to lose Montana, which he carried by 20 points in 2016." I was at that low point that I predicted Sabato would be rating Montana a toss up by summer. I think tomorrow is the first day of summer, right? Cook moved Montana to toss up yesterday.

Why not? A more recent poll shows Bullock leading 46-39%. So "toss up" seems nice and safe. Cook's Jessica Taylor wrote that the past few months have "highlighted the unique nature of this race, as the only contest with a sitting governor seeking a Senate seat. And like other governors who have ably handled the pandemic-- especially in comparison to the Trump administration's bungling-- Bullock has seen his approval ratings rise exponentially too, up to 75 percent in one poll. Montana has had one of the lowest per capita infection rates (49th out of 50), with only 20 deaths as of June 17, and Bullock has gotten plaudits for closing the state early as it began to reopen last month. So it's not surprising that Bullock seems to have benefited from his gubernatorial leadership during this crisis and being in the news daily. Recent private Democratic polling in the contest gives Bullock a small lead and finds that Bullock's approval ratings are more than 20 points higher than Daines, though the incumbent senator remains slightly above water. GOP polling also shows that it's a close race, but one where every internal poll for them has still shown Daines leading. Yet, even some Republicans privately admit this is likely to be a margin of error race to the finish line. Each party just believes it's their candidate who will eke out the victory."

Morning Consult hasn't updated their state by state Trump tracker since the pandemic struck. But by late February, Trump's approval rating in Montana had decreased by 18 points since inauguration day and his net approval was just 6 points (52-46%). The most recent polling I could find is two months old and shows Trump leading Biden 45.3% to 39.7%, a 5.6% lead for Trump-- nothing like the 56.2% to 35.7% Trump win over Hillary in 2016. Keep in mind, operations like Cook and Sabato are structurally incapable of taking into account how horrible a candidate Hillary was for Montana in 2016-- or how horrible a candidate Trump is in 2020. Taylor demonstrates what I mean:

Trump is on pace to win the state by double digits, but somewhere perhaps in the mid or low teens instead.

Overcoming that margin is still tough in a presidential year-- when Jon Tester won a second term in 2012 with President Obama atop the ballot, he outpaced him by almost 7 points. Obama lost Montana that year by nearly 14 points. But in 2008, Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races did outpace the top of the ticket by about 12.5 points. Also, Democrats argue that Biden isn't as toxic in the state as Hillary Clinton was four years ago, and note that Obama even came within 2 points of winning the state in 2008. But Republicans say their polling from last month still had Biden far underwater in the state. Plus, if Trump's numbers continue to sour nationally, there's a chance that Republicans can make the argument that there needs to be a GOP Senate still to serve as a check on a Biden administration.

But there's some evidence that maybe Bullock's performance with handling COVID-19 and generally good favorability in the state makes this a unique situation where traditional rules may not apply. Unlike other states with candidates newer to the statewide ballot, Bullock is already well-defined in voters' minds, and it may be harder to change voters' opinions of him. Bullock's fundraising has been impressive since he got in, too-- he outraised Daines by about $2.1 million in the first fundraising quarter, despite being in the race for less than a month before the deadline. In the six week pre-primary filing period too ahead of the June 2 primary, Bullock again outpaced the incumbent by a nearly two-to-one margin and pulled within $1.6 million of Daines's cash of hand advantage.

Both parties have also begun to commit outside resources to the race too. According to data from Advertising Analytics, the Democratic super PAC Senate Majority PAC has reserved about $8.1 million for ads (broadcast/cable/satellite/digital), while their 501(c)(4) offshoot Majority Forward has reserved about $3.3 million. The DSCC has reserved about $5.2 million, set to begin in August. The NRSC has reserved $2.7 million, set to begin in September. The GOP super PAC Senate Leadership Fund has reserved $8.5 million, while their non-profit arm One Nation has reserved about $3.7 million, set to begin next week.

Republicans push back on the notion that Bullock can prevail at a federal level in such a red state, and believe they have plenty of oppo to use against him from his brief, quixotic run for president last year that will ultimately bring down his numbers. They plan especially to hit him on guns after he backed an assault weapons ban, which even Tester does not support. But Democrats counter that Montanans' impression of Bullock is already formed, and that their polling indicates the gun issue won't move the numbers. And they scoff at Bullock's first ad that came out this week, where he says he "won't answer to party bosses," after he was wooed into the race by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and former President Obama. Nationalizing this race and making it more about control of the Senate instead of about whether or not voters like Bullock is key to GOP success.

...Montana is the toughest state on paper for Democrats when we look solely at the presidential numbers. Still, it's been clear for a while that this race is shaping up to be a unique battle between two well-liked Montanans (who both just happen to be named Steve), making it the most glaringly competitive race we've had in the Lean Republican column for the past few months. Several indicators now merit a more competitive rating, and therefore we are moving this race to Toss Up.

Schumer wants to fill the Senate with face Democrats like Kyrsten Sinema, who votes more frequently against progressive proposals than any other Senate Democrat. All of his picks this cycle have been Sinema-types. Hopefully Andrew Romanoff in Colorado and Charles Booker in Kentucky will defeat the Schumer candidates. Bullock is an exception in some ways. He's an actual moderate, NOT a conservative who calls himself a moderate and he's as good a Democrat as anyone could reasonably expect in Montana. And speaking of Kentucky, this Civiqs poll was released yesterday:

Trump's Pandemic Policies Aren't Killing Enough People To Impact His Vote Totals, But It's The People Left Behind Who Will Get Their Revenge In November

Remember a couple of weeks ago when I was making fun of the professional prognosticators for rating Montana's Senate race a "lean Republican?" I predicted they would all be backing away from that foolishness by summer. It's still mid-May and the National Journal's Hotline Power ratings has already tipped Montana as a viable target for Democrats-- as well as both Georgia Senate seats!

In his Tuesday email, even Charlie "walking on eggs" Cook-- acknowledging the enormity of the implications of a Democratic takeover of the Senate-- ventured to say that the chance of the GOP holding onto the Senate majority, once 66% in Cook-world, is now a "50-50 proposition." For someone as overly cautious and conservative as Cook, that is tantamount saying the Democrats have a lock on a big win for the Senate races. "Now with popular Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock challenging GOP incumbent Steve Daines in Montana," he wrote, "newly-appointed Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler mired in a horrific political situation and the possibility that Republicans could draw an exceedingly weak candidate in what should be a safe seat in Kansas (filing deadline June 1), among other problems adding to previous woes with incumbents Martha McSally in Arizona, Susan Collins in Maine, Cory Gardner in Colorado and North Carolina’s Thom Tillis all in races that are, at best, toss ups. Combine those... with a recession that has effectively eliminated any tailwind that President Trump had been enjoying from a strong economy and it is hard to see his re-election prospects looking anything but more dire by the week. Today there is more than a one-in-three chance that Democrats will win a trifecta in November, the White House, the Senate and the House. The policy and governing implications are enormous." [This morning Cook speculated that both Georgia Senate seats may be competitive!]

Keep in mind that these outcomes are not independent of each other, a Trump victory would be more likely to be accompanied by retention of the Senate, a Trump defeat would raise the odds of Democrats taking over the Senate. This isn't 'coattails," (I don't believe in coattails), but the turnout dynamics, the issue agenda and priorities and the political environment that would exist to re-elect, or defeat Trump would also be in place for a Senate that is already teetering on the edge. Our system isn't quite parliamentary but is getting increasingly more so, the linkage is greater, the ticket-splitting diminishing.

It would be hard to overstate the importance that the combination of President Trump in the White House and a Mitch McConnell-led Republican Senate majority has had on shaping the Federal judiciary. Two U.S. Supreme Court Justices, 51 judges on the 13 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals and 138 Federal District judges have been confirmed under this Trump-McConnell combo, two more Circuit and 40 more district judges are in the pipeline, awaiting confirmation. As enormous as the consequences are and will be for a generation or two, the implications of yet another two or four years of Republicans controlling even more judicial nominations is enough to give most on the left or right heart palpitations, out of either joy or terror.

Moving beyond judicial nominations, the policy implications are incredible as well. Back in the day, one party holding the White House and a House majority but a razor-thin edge in the Senate would find itself greatly stymied, real limits on what they could accomplish. But now, with the threshold for most executive and all judicial confirmations down to a simple majority and the possibility of the filibuster being completely scrapped, the governing implications are head-spinning.  

And the unofficial mouth of Inside-the-Beltway conventional wisen, Josh Kraushaar, noted at the same time that "Republicans are growing increasingly worried that President Trump’s shaky political position will not just cost them the presidency, but also sweep in a Democratic Senate majority and further diminish their House minority. The latest round of polling shows the president losing to Joe Biden, as well as Democrats gaining ground in red-state Senate seats that once looked like long shots, from Georgia to Montana to Kansas. There’s a growing chance that Democrats may capture control of the Senate with a seat or two to spare."

It's horrifying that Schumer has it rigged to make sure the new Democratic Senate majority is a dogged conservative, anti-progressive majority. There's still time do something about that in a few states, especially Colorado, where progressive Andrew Romanoff and conservative John Frackenlooper each is a sure bet to beat walking dead GOP Senator Cory Gardner. Schumer is doing all he can to paint Frackenlooper as inevitable. But he isn't and Romanoff is beating him by every metric but corporate cash, which has gushed into the Frackenlooper campaign. Please consider contributing to Romanoff and the other progressive Senate candidates by clicking on the 2020 Senate thermometer on the right and giving what you can. Back to Kraushaar:

The current political environment is reminiscent of 2008, two years after Democrats swept control of the House and Senate under President George W. Bush. It’s mostly remembered for Barack Obama’s historic election, but the Democrats’ downballot dominance was just as remarkable. Riding deep dissatisfaction with GOP leadership, Democrats expanded their Senate majority to a near filibuster-proof margin and won House seats in some of the most reliably conservative territory in the country.

Like the political environment today, the 2008 election took place in the middle of a national crisis. Back then, the Republican presidential nominee insisted that the fundamentals of the country were strong during a deepening recession. Now a Republican president is publicly insisting he has “met the moment” and prevailed, despite rising death rates and massive unemployment from the coronavirus. Then, as now, a Democratic challenger used the GOP candidate’s own words in devastating attack ads.

As the New York Times’ Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman wrote: “The two elections were effectively a single continuous rejection of Republican rule, as some in the GOP fear 2018 and 2020 could become in a worst-case scenario.”

Having covered the 2008 congressional campaigns closely, I’m also struck by how much in common that the two elections share. That year, Democrats netted eight Senate seats, sweeping comedian Al Franken into office while winning races in conservative strongholds such as Alaska and South Dakota as part of a big blue wave. Republicans didn’t even field a candidate in Arkansas, one of the most conservative states on the map. Mitch McConnell faced the closest race of his Senate career, barely defeating a not-ready-for-prime-time Democratic challenger.

“[My race] isn’t going to be a landslide,” McConnell told me at the time. “The president is not popular. The economy is certainly slow, so it’s a much more contested environment.”

Repeat McConnell’s words 12 years later and they hold true today. Look at the wider Senate map, and you can see eerie parallels. A poll conducted by Georgia Republicans shows the state’s senior Sen. David Perdue only polling at 45 percent, just 6 points ahead of Democrat Jon Ossoff. Perdue hasn’t been considered particularly vulnerable, but it’s now plausible to see him locked in a competitive race if the bottom falls out for the president. (This is the “other” Senate election in Georgia, which hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention as the special Senate election involving embattled GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler.)

The possibility of other red-state surprises are apparent: The emergence of conservative hard-liner Kris Kobach as a possible Senate nominee in Kansas is giving Democrats an unusual opportunity in a state that hasn’t voted a Democrat to the Senate in nearly 90 years. Gov. Steve Bullock’s entrance into Montana's Senate race is putting Sen. Steve Daines’s seat squarely in play. McConnell even faces well-funded opposition from another not-ready-for-prime-time Democratic challenger in the middle of another crisis. If Republicans lose even one of these red-state seats, the odds that Democrats win an outright majority in the Senate increases dramatically.

Another major storyline this year is the Republican Party’s inability to recruit credible House candidates, particularly in districts that Trump carried in 2016. Many freshman Democrats representing Trump districts aren’t facing tough Republican opposition. Twelve years ago, that dynamic was similarly apparent on the Senate side. Only one Democratic senator faced credible GOP competition that year-- Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu-- and she still coasted to victory over now-Sen. John Kennedy. Then-Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat, ran unopposed by Republicans in Arkansas, a state that John McCain comfortably carried.

...[R]ight now, Trump and his Republican party are in dire shape. The history of embattled presidents facing reelection during a worsening crisis doesn’t offer much comfort. Even Trump, always averse to uncomfortable truths, recognizes this.

In a series of half a dozen tweets this week, Paul Krugman asserted that the GOP has given up "on trying to control Covid and reopen the economy; the propaganda arm (Fox and worse) is going all in for conspiracy theorizing and virus trutherism. At one level this shouldn't be surprising. It's the same script the party has followed on climate change, and the virus truthers are a lot like the inflation truthers who insisted that we had runaway inflation under Obama. But what's going on now seems to involve a new level of political recklessness. Climate change takes place over decades; inflation truthers paid no political or personal price for being wrong again and again. But if the virus erupts, it will happen quickly. In other words, the GOP has in effect decided to ignore the science at the clear risk of being held accountable in the near future both for killing thousands and for wrecking the economy, because that's what a premature opening would do. Why take that risk? Partly they may be high on their own supply, no longer able to conceive that there is an objective reality that might be politically inconvenient. Partly I think it's because they know in their hearts that they can't actually do the job of governing. But anyway, we're witnessing a lethal abdication of responsibility whose consequences will be quickly apparent. It's truly awesome to watch."





Earlier today we saw what Republicans in control of the state legislature and state Supreme Court are doing to Wisconsin. It's as if they want to kill people! And in nearly every state where Republicans can, they are making the pandemic worse. Yesterday, writing for the NY Times, Trip Gabriel reported that GOP defiance of Pennsylvania's lockdown has 2020 implications. Pennsylvania has been horribly hit by the pandemic. There are 63,122 cases-- 6th worst in the country-- with 4,320 more confirmed cases yesterday and 4,931 cases per million in the population, the 11th hardest hit state by the metric. And although, predictably, Philadelphia has been hardest hit, cases have spiked in Trump counties as well. This list shows cases + Trump's 2016 percentage of the votes in the 15 worse hit counties:

• Philadelphia- 19,093 cases-- Trump- 15.5%
• Montgomery- 5,583 cases-- Trump- 37.6%
• Delaware- 5,252 cases-- Trump- 37.4%
• Bucks- 4,248 cases-- Trump- 47.8%
• Berks- 3,530 cases-- Trump- 52.9%
• Lehigh- 3,378 cases-- Trump- 45.9%
• Northampton- 2,566 cases-- Trump- 50.0%
• Luzerne- 2,477 cases-- Trump- 58.4%
• Lancaster- 2,364 cases-- Trump- 57.3%
• Chester- 2,008 cases-- Trump- 43.3%
• Alleghany- 1,551 cases-- Trump- 40.0%
• Lackawana- 1,256 cases- Trump- 46.8%
• Monroe- 1,240 cases-- Trump- 48.1%
• Dauphin- 895 cases-- Trump- 46.6%
• Lebanon- 856 cases-- Trump- 65.9%

Gabriel reported that on Monday, addressing county lawmakers, Governor Tom Wolf slammed the GOP with "a stunning rebuke, as resistance to lockdown orders flares around the country." Wolf "a military metaphor to accuse Republican officials of desertion in the battle against the pandemic: 'To those politicians who decide to cave in to this coronavirus they need to understand the consequences of their cowardly act.'"

The normally mild-mannered governor’s comments turned up the temperature of a national debate over the health emergency, one fanned by President Trump as he eggs on protesters at state capitols, including in Harrisburg, and by lawmakers in Congress, where the government’s top health officials warned this week of dire consequences if the economy reopens too soon.

On Thursday, the president arrived in Pennsylvania, one of several battleground states crucial to his re-election, where the political combat over limiting the virus’s death toll or easing its economic devastation could have weighty consequences in November. While 26 percent of the state’s work force has filed for unemployment, the governor is relying on metrics about the virus’s spread to keep many people in their homes and all but “life-sustaining” businesses in populous regions closed.

Republicans, sensing a gut-level anger in exurban and rural areas after nearly two months of restrictions, see an issue with the potential to drive turnout by voters in a state where Mr. Trump, as elsewhere in the industrial and Midwest region, needs a surge of support to repeat his narrow victory of 2016. In Wisconsin, also a swing state, the State Supreme Court sided with Republicans on Wednesday and threw out the stay-at-home order of Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. In Texas, armed men have shown up to support businesses defying government orders to stay closed, an extreme sign of the politicizing of social distancing rules.

At the same time, polls show that Mr. Wolf, like other governors moving cautiously and heeding scientific benchmarks to reopen, is enjoying record support, including among many Republicans.

Mr. Trump seemed to address Mr. Wolf on Monday via Twitter. “The great people of Pennsylvania want their freedom now, and they are fully aware of what that entails,” he tweeted. “The Democrats are moving slowly, all over the USA, for political purposes.”

The governor’s accusation of cowardice was directed at officials in half a dozen Republican-led counties that have said they would defy his timeline for reopening businesses. Mr. Wolf has partly lifted restrictions on 37 counties, mainly in rural regions where community spread of the virus is more easily contained.

But with the rest of the state, including its populous southeast, still under a strict stay-at-home order through June 4, officials in some counties said they would ignore the governor and open up starting Friday.

“The health crisis is real, but the economic devastation is real also,” said Josh Parsons, a commissioner of Lancaster County, one of those moving to loosen restrictions despite not meeting all of the governor’s health benchmarks.

He described “chaos on the ground” as people openly disregarded stay-at-home orders in recent weeks. “People have been voting with their feet and going back to work because they have to,” he said.

Some Republican strategists said the issue of reopening Pennsylvania would add motivation to turn out for Mr. Trump against the Democratic Party in November.

“I’ve sensed a very, very strong backlash in, quote, the hinterlands,” said Charlie Gerow, a Republican strategist in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Trump narrowly carried Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes in 2016. To compensate for population growth and rising anger at his presidency in the Philadelphia suburbs, which lifted Democrats in recent elections, he needs higher support among white men, with and without college degrees.

“My sense is there is a significant number of voters who did not vote in 2016 for whatever reasons who will be voting for President Trump in 2020, and part of it is this overreach by Governor Wolf,” Mr. Gerow said.

Mr. Gerow may be on strong drugs. The pre-COVID Morning Consult Trump Tracker showed Trump having lost 11 approval points since his inauguration and his net job approval underwater 49-48%. Since the pandemic kicked in, Trump's numbers have submerged. The Real Clear Politics polling average shows Biden beating him 48.3- 41.8%-- a 6.5% spread. The most recent polling (last week in April) was conducted by a Republican polling firm, Harper. It shows 49% of voters ready to vote for Biden and just 43% ready for Trump. Only 23% of respondents say the disagree with Pennsylvania ordering all non-essential businesses closing under threat of criminal prosecution and only 14% disagreed with Pennsylvania closing all schools for the remainder of the school year. 16% disagreed with the governor's stay-at-home orders. I wonder if Mr. Gerow is ready for those odds.

Gabriel noted that "A survey released this week by the Washington Post/Ipsos showed that 72 percent of Pennsylvania adults approved of how the governor has handled the coronavirus outbreak, including 51 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Only 45 percent of all adults in the state supported Mr. Trump’s handling of the outbreak. In addition, seven in 10 Pennsylvanians said the United States should keep trying to slow the virus’s spread even if it means keeping businesses closed. Nearly half of Republicans agreed."

“I’m baffled by what the Republican game plan is here,” said J.J. Balaban, a Democratic strategist in Pennsylvania. “I guess they think this will rally their base, but it seems to speak to a narrow base that is already riled up, while alienating them from the kinds of voters they need to carry Pennsylvania.”

In Lancaster County, as well as others that have moved to reopen despite the governor’s orders, the rate of new coronavirus cases remains higher than 50 per 100,000 people over the previous two weeks, a target Mr. Wolf’s administration set for moving counties to a “yellow” phase of partial reopening. Lancaster County also has one of the highest death tolls in the state, with 183 as of Thursday.

Other counties where Republican officials vowed late last week to defy the governor include Dauphin, Franklin, Lebanon, Berks and Schuylkill, roughly the region from the Philadelphia exurbs west to Harrisburg. Some county sheriffs and district attorneys said they would not pursue businesses that opened despite the governor’s orders. On Wednesday, after Mr. Wolf warned that defiant counties would face consequences, Dauphin County’s commissioners backed down and said they would not unilaterally move to yellow status.

Mr. Parsons, the Lancaster County commissioner, and other local Republican officials argue that the county has met more important metrics for reopening than the growth of new virus cases, including the availability of intensive-care beds and ventilators in hospitals. Deaths are high because the county has many nursing homes, he said.

“We need to protect those people in nursing homes, but that doesn’t mean some people can’t safely and prudently go back to work,” Mr. Parsons said.

On Monday, Mr. Wolf threatened to withhold federal coronavirus relief money from counties that disobeyed him and reopened early.

He also told business owners who reopened too early that they risked losing certificates of occupancy, liquor licenses and insurance. “Insurance does not cover things that happen to businesses breaking the law,” he warned.

Trumpist Pastor Who Keeps Infecting More Members Of His Congregation, Claims Death From COVID-19 Is "A Welcome Friend"

Totally In Control by Nancy Ohanian

Thursday, a new Gallup poll showed Trump's pandemic job approval collapsing-- down 6 points in a month. Yesterday, ABC News released a new poll by Ipsos filled with more bad news for Houdini. Americans, the poll confirming what you probably have already surmised, are feeling pessimistic. ABC News reported that "three in four Americans think they will be able to resume their regular routine by the end of the summer, which is down from 84% who said the same in an ABC News/Ipsos poll released on April 3. In the newest poll, two-thirds of Democrats (66%) and an overwhelming 93% of Republicans view the end of the summer as the timeframe for a return to normal."

The Republican death cult is still adamant about infected normal people. In L.A. it's mandatory to wear a mask when entering a store. People without masks are-- to put it mildly-- shunned. I have seen two get beaten up, one seriously. But in Republican hell-holes people still don't wear masks. The poll also showed that Trump's handling of the crisis has a majority of Americans disapproving-- 54%, to just 44% who think he's doing an adequate job.

You've probably heard about how religionist hecklers have refused to allow the pandemic to interfere with their cash streams and have insisted on continuing to rob their followers. On Thursday, Elizabeth Williamson reported on the results of the Jerry Falwell scam at Liberty "University," luring students back to campus to be infected. His campus is now a hot bed of contagion. In the last 2 weeks, over 70 in the community have caught it and they've had their first death. "[A] Liberty student on Monday filed a class-action lawsuit in a federal court in Virginia, saying that Liberty and Mr. Falwell had 'placed students at severe physical risk and refused to refund thousands of dollars in fees owed to them for the Spring 2020 semester,' according to a statement from the law firm filing the suit."

Falwell told an unabashed Trumpist radio host, John Fredericks, that the media is behind the whole thing and that they "just want power, they’re authoritarian, they’re like nothing I’ve seen since, if you go back in history, to Nazi Germany. That’s what they remind me of." He's trying to have reporters arrested by campus security guards and threatening law suits.





Another member of the GOP death cult, satanic "pastor" Tony Spell of Baton Rouge has insisted on large church gatherings and has spread COVID-19 among the poor suckers who take him seriously. One parishioner died.

News of the death comes hours after a lawyer representing Spell and the church in an expected legal fight over the state's social distancing restrictions on churches confirmed he had been hospitalized and was on oxygen after contracting the virus.

The lawyer, Jeff Wittenbrink, attended two events at Life Tabernacle Church-- an April 2 news conference and an April 5 church service, and has been at Baton Rouge General since Tuesday after progressively worsening conditions, including a high fever and persistent cough, he said.

...Spell's fight against the order, along with a handful of other religious leaders nationally against similar restrictions, has attracted worldwide attention. He has been charged with six misdemeanor counts of violating Edwards' orders.

Spell, who has faced criticism over his stand, has made several provocative comments about the virus and the resulting controversy, including telling TMZ that true Christians do not mind dying from the virus but from "fear living in fear, cowardice of their convictions."

While many houses of worship have converted to online services, Spell maintains that in-person services are essential to his congregation's faith and financial well-being. 

Charlie Cook mused about what would be the deciding factor for voters in November. Unless it's a referendum on Biden, Trump will have virtually no chance at reelection. "When incumbent presidents run for reelection, it is normally a referendum on that incumbent. If that turns out to be the case again this time, what specific aspect of the Trump presidency will be judged-- voter’s personal views of President Trump, or more broadly whether Americans want to renew his contract for another four years? Or will it be purely about his handling of the coronavirus crisis? Will it be about Trump’s stewardship over the economy, and if so, about his first three years in office, or where it is for all of 2020, or just where it is over the past 60 or 90 days before the Nov. 3 election? Or could it be about something else, either involving Trump or the now-presumptive nominee, Joe Biden?"

One thing is certain, Trump's inept, deceitful, dysfunctional and failed handling of the pandemic won't be helping GOP election efforts this year. "The pandemic, which has killed more than 30,000 Americans and left millions out of work," wrote Jonathan Lemire for AP, "has eviscerated Trump’s hope to run for reelection on a strong economy. A series of states he won in 2016 could tilt toward Democrats. In Florida, a Republican governor closely aligned with Trump has come under scrutiny for being slow to close the state. In Wisconsin, the Democratic victor in last week’s Supreme Court race captured 28 counties, up from the 12 that Hillary Clinton won four years ago. In Michigan, a Democratic governor has seen her approval rating rise against the backdrop of a fight with Trump. And in Arizona, low marks for Trump could be enough to turn the formerly Republican stronghold into a tossup."

In southwest Michigan, a knee-jerk Trump ally, Fred Upton, is known as a 100% Trump enabler. Upton's challenger this year is progressive state Rep Jon Hoadley. I asked him if Trump is turning out to be an anchor around the incumbent's neck. "Gov. Whitmer is doing the right thing by listening to scientists and public health experts to keep Michiganders safe," he told me last night. "Unfortunately, Congressman Upton is parroting President Trump and advocating for a rushed reopening that puts the health and safety of our communities at risk. When you need to fix your car, you go to a mechanic. When you’re sick, you go to a doctor. When we’re in a public health crisis, you should listen to scientists and public health experts. Voters across Southwest Michigan will remember Rep. Upton was following the lead of President Trump who called our global pandemic 'a hoax' instead of looking out for us.

If You Had To Pick One Democratic Congressman To Lose To The GOP In 2020, Who Would It Be? I have A Suggestion

Collin Peterson: DRECK!

Minnesota's 7th district is as red as it gets. The PVI is R+12 and Obama lost it both times he ran. Trump beat Hillary here-- 62 to 31%. It's about 95% of western Minnesota and borders on North and South Dakota. Folks there gave uo on the corrupted DC corporate Democrats long ago. In the 2016 primary, folks there went crazy for Bernie's populist, progressive reform message. Bernie didn't just beat Hillary in a landslide-- 63.2% to 36.8%-- more than double the number of voters came out to caucus for him than for Trump!

• Bernie- 6,608
• Trump- 3,017

When the general election came along, though, Hillary was the nominee and she lost every single county in MN-07. The biggest county in the district in terms of population, is Otter Tail. The only Democratic presidential candidates to win the county since Minnesota was granted statehood (1858 were the two most like Bernie: FDR and William Jennings Bryan).

Many MN-07 voters live across the Red Rver from North Dakota cities Fargo and Grand Forks (Clay and Polk counties) and get their news from North Dakota media. (The only states redder than North Dakota are Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Idaho.)

The congressman from MN-07, since 1991, is Collin Peterson. He's an anti-Choice fanatic, has one of the most homophobic voting records in Congress, opposes healthcare (voted against Obamacare and voted to repeal it), votes to abolish the estate tax, is anti-environment, opposes consumer protection legislation, votes for deregulation of just about everything and is one of the most pro-NRA members of Congress. He has preemptively declared that "I will not support any kind of climate change bill." And he's a war-monger. Sounds like a pretty typical Republican, right? Yes, right... but he's a Blue Dog "Democrat" and the DCCC is about to drop as much as $4 million of defending his seat next year.

Peterson famously said he "doesn't know a damn thing about the Yemen civil war" but was one of only 5 Democrats to vote with the GOP to allow Trump to keep selling weapons to the Saudis for their genocide policy there. He was the only Democrat to vote against the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. He voted against the Violence Against Women Act and against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. He opposes Medicare-for-All but he was one of the only Democrats to vote for Republican Medicare (Bush's bill to bilk consumers on prescription drugs while enriching the pharmaceutical companies). Pelosi has repeatedly made him chair of the House Agricultural Committee, which he has turned into a virtual meeting for corrupt Blue Dogs eager to take bribes from corporate agriculture and do their bidding.

The NRCC recognizes an ally when they see one and rarely support any local Republicans opposing him. Last cycle Republican Dave Hughes nearly beat him, 52 to 48%, with the NRCC spending exactly zero on his behalf-- and after being outspent by Peterson $1,494,741 to $229,418. (Hughes had run against him in 2016 as well with almost identical results and with no support from the NRCC.) Hughes is running against in 2020... but this time the Republican Party plans to get serious about this race-- although not on Hughes' behalf. Yesterday, David Wasserman, reporting for the Cook Report, wrote that they moved MN-07 from "lean Democrat" to "toss up."

That's because former Lt. Gov. Michelle Fischbach (R) announced that she's running against Peterson. "In an era defined by sky-high polarization and straight-ticket voting," wrote Wasserman, "Peterson is an extreme outlier. No one else in the House represents a seat where the opposite party's presidential candidate received more than 55 percent of the vote in 2016, but Peterson-- first elected in 1990-- has managed to defy political gravity a sprawling, rural district that voted for President Trump by a landslide 61 percent to 31 percent. The reason? Peterson, 75, is serving his second stint as chair of the Ag Committee, where his policy expertise is widely respected across the aisle and his farm bill-crafting clout is prized by farmers in his sugar beet and corn-rich district. Moreover, his personal style-- including flying his own plane around the sprawling district and showing up to events unstaffed in jeans and cowboy boots-- holds undeniable local appeal."

Then Wasserman goes off the rails in a direction all DC pundits go: the extreme conservative Blue Dogs, he claims, absurdly, are "moderate" and the right-wing psychopath Peterson (who refused to vote for Hillary against Trump) has "never been regarded as an ideologue."

Ironically, what may finally do Peterson in is something that Wasserman was singing his praises over: "just last month, Peterson hosted Trump-appointed Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue for a bipartisan discussion at the iconic Minnesota Farmfest at a time when China's retaliation against Trump's trade tariffs is putting serious stress on district farmers." Beltway pundits like Wasserman may soon have something to weep in their milk over. As he wrote himself, "there are signs Peterson's grasp on the 7th CD has been gradually slipping. As rural Minnesota has drifted towards the GOP, Peterson's margin of victory has shrunk in each of his past three elections. In 2016, he defeated Air Force veteran Dave Hughes by just 53 percent to 47 percent despite outspending Hughes $1.2 million to $19,000. In 2018, Peterson won a rematch by an even narrower 52 percent to 48 percent. Peterson could be even more vulnerable in 2020 with Trump atop the ballot. Given past patterns, it's likely 50,000 to 80,000 additional voters beyond the 281,000 who cast ballots here in 2018 will show up to vote. And, these casual, less politically engaged voters are less likely to be aware of or value Peterson's clout as Ag chair and independence from national Democrats. They're more likely to cast straight tickets." Ahhh... just when Democrats are getting sick of holding their noses and vote for Peterson. And it doesn't matter than Fischbach is virtually brain-dead, announcing her run by laughably "calling Peterson an enabler of 'the socialist agenda of Nancy Pelosi, Ilhan Omar and the rest of the squad.' Fischbach is married to the head of Minnesota's largest pro-life group and will have access to a large fundraising network of social conservatives. And unlike Hughes, whom she must first get past in a primary, she will have strong backing from the NRCC (which sat out the past two cycles)."

However, Fischbach isn't without vulnerabilities. In 2018, she created a minor maelstrom by trying to simultaneously keep her state Senate seat while filling the lieutenant governor vacancy (at the time, Republicans held a 34 to 33 seat majority in the chamber that depended on Fischbach's vote). Ultimately, Fischbach backed down and resigned, but the legal battle ended up costing taxpayers $146,000.

More fundamentally, Fischbach's 23-year tenure in St. Paul could give Democrats an avenue to call her a Twin Cities "career politician" and could rob Republicans of the line of attack that Peterson has been in office too long and it's time for change. Peterson and Democrats could also highlight Fischbach's movement conservatism and Twin Cities roots to cast her as a poor fit for a farm belt seat with populist roots.

The last time DC Republicans took serious interest here was in 2014, when they recruited state Sen. Torrey Westrom. Westrom, who is blind and had a good personal story, raised $1 million. But Democrats accused him of trying to shut down the state government and taking "more than $300,000 in reimbursements from taxpayers over his two decades in St. Paul." Peterson prevailed, 54 percent to 46 percent.

Look for Democrats to reprise those same attacks against Fischbach, who has an extensive St. Paul paper trail to litigate. Furthermore, they will seek to tie Fischbach to Trump's tariffs and make the case that with family farmers in distress, Peterson's clout and presence as a check are more essential than ever. For her part, Fischbach has praised Trump for taking on China for "sticking it to farmers for years."

Of course, the biggest question is whether Peterson decides to run again in 2020. On one hand, Peterson just regained his gavel and leaving a powerful post so soon after winning the majority would be atypical. But on the other, Peterson must decide whether he wants to wage a multi-million dollar campaign for what would likely be one final term, considering Minnesota is likely to lose a district after the 2020 Census.

If Peterson does run again (Minnesota's filing deadline isn't until next June), he'll have powerful allies seeking to ease his workload. American Crystal Sugar, a highly influential farmer-owned sugar cooperative based in the Red River Valley of Minnesota and North Dakota, has already created and funded a $300,000 SuperPAC, the Committee for Stronger Rural Committees, with the sole mission of reelecting Peterson.

Conventional wisdom, popular inside the Beltway, is certain that if Peterson retires, there is no Democrat who could possibly hold the seat, not even against so flawed a candidate as Fischbach. And a post-Peterson DCCC policy would be to either abandon the district entirely or to recruit and run another Republican-lite Blue Dog like Peterson... but never to try to get behind a populist, progressive Democrat who could take on the GOP form the perspective of MN-07 farming communities deep in recession because of the Trump Trade War and his knee-jerk congressional enablers. Remember, these people admire independents-- and admire Bernie-- and, wisely, hate Pelosi and the DCCC.

Congressional Prognosticators Are Unaware of The Scope Of The 2020 Anti-Trump Wave That Is Forming

The new Economist/YouGov poll, released yesterday, has more bad news for the GOP. Favorability for congressional Democrats (37%) is 8 points higher than favorability for congressional Republicans (29%). Since only 34% of voters see Trump as honest and trustworthy, he's not going to be able to offer Republicans much help heading into the midterms, except with his hardcore followers-- the 34%. And they need some help. The generic congressional vote now, looks hideous for the GOP. Asked who they would vote for, the Republicans were underwater in every region, as well as nationally:

Northeast

• Democrat- 58%
• Repblican- 30%

Midwest

• Democrat- 45%
• Repblican- 40%

South

• Democrat- 44%
• Repblican- 40%

West

• Democrat- 47%
• Repblican- 38%

Nationally

• Democrat- 47%
• Republican- 38%

Yesterday, writing about the same 2020 congressional cycle, the brain scientists at the Cook Report, as conservative and wrong as always, claimed that "Overall, Democrats are favorites to retain the majority, more likely a reduced than expanded one. If the 23 seats currently in the Toss Up column were to split evenly between the parties, Republicans would gain a net of five seats, less than a third of what they need. The Democrats-- even with a wrecked and even more useless than usual DCCC-- are on track to pick up closer to 50 seats than lose 5. Their predictions have consistently proven worthless for the last decade and a half... so why does anyone care what they say?

Why split them? That's just arbitrarily stupid, It would literally make more sense to say the Democrats will win all of them-- or 90% of them. Look, for example, at the once iconic Republican county in California that swung elections to Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon-- red, red Orange County. It used to be for Republican politics what Bavaria was for the Nazi Party. No more-- in fact there is not one Republican congressman left in any corner of the county-- 100% Democrat. But the NRCC us targeting the 4 Democratic freshmen. Split them 2 to 2? Insane, when the Democrats are likely to retain all 4, even incompetent and worthless Gil Cisneros, who may be far less lucky when Trump isn't on the ballot in 2022. As of yesterday, there were more registered Democrats in Orange County than there are Republicans. By election day, there are likely to be thousands more Democrats than Republicans, since the Democrats are out-registering the GOP by around 100 voters per day.

Rachel Bitecofer is a better analyst and prognosticator than Cook. Her latest is about how increased suburban turnout is what gave the Democrats their big midterm wins in 2018. "The main driver of the suburban revolt away from the GOP," she wrote, "is college education. Although Trumpism has been an effective rallying cry for the GOP base, it has galvanized a previously complacent part of the electorate; white, college educated millennial women as well as all voters under age 40, who represent a far more diverse and liberal voter universe than their older counterparts. As such, any district with high levels of college educated voters was extremely vulnerable for Republicans in 2018, even those that had long been in the hands of the Republican Party such as the six Orange County districts in Southern California which my model was quite clear would uniformly flip to the Democrats. It's important to clarify one point, profoundly misunderstood, 2018 is a story of turnout and turnout was powered by one thing, and one thing only: Donald J. Trump. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Democrats did not flip these Republican districts via the support of moderate Republicans due to their focus on health care. Instead, I’ll show in a forthcoming analysis of the voter file that Democrats’ sharp reversal in their abysmal midterm electoral fortunes was powered by large turnout surges of partisan Democrats and Independents. This turnout surge had profound impacts on the demographic and partisan compositions of the electorates in the competitive districts, leading 40 of them to flip on Election Day."

For better or for worse, American elections are low turnout affairs and it is increasingly clear that in the polarized era, as voters have become more entrenched in their respective parties, elections are increasingly decided by which party (and their Independent leaners) has a turnout-boosting enthusiasm advantage. Analyzed this way, contests are assessed by their turnout surge (or decline) potential. Using this metric, despite Democrats’ impressive 2018 performance, they left a half dozen seats uncontested in the 2018 cycle that may well have flipped if they had been identified as competitive by the Democrat’s campaign apparatus.

The table below identifies these districts, as well as several others Democrats did contest but came up short in for the 2018 cycle. Nine of these districts are in Texas, which increasing looks like it should be Ground 0 of the Democrats’ 2020 efforts. However, actually flipping these districts would require a massive investment in an area Democrats have continually under-invested in: Latino turnout. Democrats’ success in increasing the size of their House majority will largely depend on whether they come to recognize the need to maximize turnout among Democratic-friendly constituencies such as college-educated women, Latinos, African Americans, and Millennials and in their ability to understand that it is fear of Trump, not policy, that will best motivate these voters to the polls, no matter what the voters themselves may think. Given the rampant misdiagnosis of how Democrats came upon their House majority in the 1st place (the turnout surge was about health care, not Trump and they won by wooing Republicans) I am certainly not arguing that Democrats will win these seats, only that demographically, they would be able to if they ran the right strategy. Between NY 24 and 27 Democrats and their allies spent $40 million dollars and came up short on both races. Reinvesting money like that in Texas has potential to yield them far greater seat gains.

I’ll add, the four open seats all but certain to flip as is AZ 6 now that the party has come to realize how competitive it is. I also assume that the party will invest more heavily in NE-2 in 2020, regardless of whether they care for the nominee. That would give Democrats a bare minimum of an additional 6 seats from the cycle.

Here are the 18 most competitive seats currently held by the Republican Party [including the percentage of residents with college eductions]. 

• AZ-06- David Schweikert-- 51.1%
• GA-07- (open) 47.8%
• IN-05- (open)-- 50.9%
• MO-02- Ann Wagner-- 55.4%
• NC-02- George Holding-- 43.8%
• NE-02- Don Bacon-- 46.1%
• NY-01- Lee Zeldin-- 44.4%
• NY-24- John Katco-- 41.9%
• NY-27- Chris Collins-- 42.3%
• TX-02- Dan Crenshaw-- 47.1%
• TX-03- Van Taylor-- 60.5%
• TX-10- Michael McCaul-- 44.3%
• TX-21- Chip Roy-- 51.8%
• TX-22- (open)-- 51.3%
• TX-23- (open)-- 24.1%
• TX-24- (open)-- 51.0%
• TX-25- Roger Williams-- 43.1%
• TX-31- John Carter-- 42.8%

I asked the most likely Democratic candidates in some of these districts why they think they are going to turn their district blue this cycle. The first to get back with me was Mike Siegel, the Texan who nearly defeated Michael McCaul in 2018 and is poised to do just that in 2020. "In a single election cycle, we narrowed the gap in TX-10 from 19% to 4%. Through a strong field campaign, a massive volunteer effort, and enthusiasm up and down the ballot my campaign mobilized over 1,000 Texans to knock doors and get out the vote. And this was only the beginning. McCaul is deeply unpopular, because of his attacks on healthcare, his complicity in family separation and other human rights abuses, and his complete absence from the District. For eight terms, McCaul did nothing to show that he cared; he relied on personal wealth and gerrymandering to maintain his position. Now, we have the foundation for a strong progressive shift, led by youth and labor, social justice organizations and grassroots activists, that will flip TX-10 and propel Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, from local races to Senate and President. McCaul's days in Congress are numbered."

Marqus Cole is the progressive Democrat running for the open seat in the suburbs north of Atlanta that is looking like it's gone from red to purple and will elect a Democrat for the first time in living memory. "Anyone who looks closely at the GA-07 can see the writing on the wall," said Cole this morning. "That is why Woodall retired instead of facing the music. The lukewarm centrist candidate ran and lost in this Atlanta suburb by 500 votes; meanwhile Lucy McBath ran as a gun control activist next door and won and here Stacey Abrams ran as a strong unabashed, unapologetic Democrat and carried the district by 1,700 votes on a progressive platform.  This is one of the most diverse communities in the South and it is only growing as incomes go up, demographics change and the Trump Administration gets more extreme. A progressive, millennial and minority candidate who can speak to criminal justice reform, access to healthcare and small business interests is pitch perfect to carry the seat. That is why the Republican party is doing everything it can to try and buy the seat early with candidates pouring in $50,000; $250,00 and $600,000 of their own dollars early." It's worth investing in seats like GA-07 and TX-10 and helping progressives like Marqus Cole and Mike Siegel replace Republicans in Congress. Please click on the Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right and consider contributing what you can.