Thom Tillis Is Counting On Trump And Schumer To Keep Him In The Senate

Thom Tillis is betting that pledging fealty to Trump will help him keep his Senate seat. He needs to beat multimillionaire neo-fascist crackpot Garland Tucker in a primary in which Tucker is self-financing his campaign ($1,274,643 million so far, 74% of his campaign war chest) and painting Tillis "as an enemy of the Trump agenda."

Trump beat Hillary in North Carolina, a swing state, by 3 points in 2016-- 2,362,631 (49.83%) to 2,189,316 (46.17%). Since then, though, Trump's image has crashed and burned. He's popular among Republicans but has utterly lost independents-- in a state where independents determine the outcomes of every election. According to the most recent Trump Tracker polling, Trump's job approval has steadily decreased since he was inaugurated. Since then, he has lost 21 points and today his approval is minus 3%. In way of comparison, Trump's approval is in positive territory in both Kentucky (+11) and Louisiana (+12)-- where he just presided over the loss of two gubernatorial allies, Matt Bevin and Eddie Rispone. It's worth mentioning that an impeachment inquiry was favored, even before it started, by 48.8% to 41.0% of North Carolinians polled.





Burgess Everett took a look at Tillis' strategy for Politico, reminding readers that "Tillis began the Trump era by negotiating with Democrats on immigration and co-authoring legislation to protect special counsel Robert Mueller. He even briefly opposed President Donald Trump’s national emergency to build a border wall." That was then. "Now the North Carolina Republican's independent streak is fading. He’s deploying the president as a shield against a conservative primary challenger and he’s hugging Trump tightly... It’s a shrewd political strategy amid a well-funded primary challenge from Garland Tucker, a conservative businessman who paints Tillis as an enemy of the Trump agenda. But Tillis’ role as Trump’s new best friend threatens to undermine his profile as a diligent, unpredictable senator-- and could damage his general election chances."

Everett himself is a good example of how Tillis can avoid losing in November. Everett is the kind of Inside-the-Beltway shill for the party power-mongers so that his Politico pieces sound like they were written, in part, by the DSCC and the NRCC. Let me show you some typical Everett: Standing behind Tucker is potential Democratic opponent Cal Cunningham, an establishment-backed military veteran eager to cast Tillis as a lackey who 'married himself to Donald Trump.'" Straight from Chuck Schumer's press shop. Virtually all polling shows state Senator Erica Smith, a progressive African American woman, is preferred to Schumer's conservative what male candidate. The most recent polling (Oct 7) is by Meredith College and it shows Schumer's Cunningham losing to Tillis 33.3% to 32.6%... but the more independent-minded Erica Smith beating him 33.5% to 33.1%. Schumer's propaganda team manages to get lazy lunkheads and Beltway sheep-- Everett is just one of dozens-- to stick with the party line.

Everett is correct when he points out that Tillis' most immediate task is to win the primary. (Presumably he can hope Schumer is successful in sabotaging smith's campaign and handing him the easily beaten Cunningham as an opponent.)

“He probably has more of a challenge in a primary than he does in a general,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), a close ally of the president who has not endorsed Tillis.

Meadows added that Tillis’ support for the special counsel bill and his shifting stance on the national emergency declaration “created an opening in a race that would generally not have seen a credible primary challenger."

The wealthy Tucker is spending heavily on ads highlighting Tillis’ “flip-flop” on the border-- Tillis’ most infamous episode as a senator-- when he voted to uphold the national emergency after announcing his opposition in a Washington Post op-ed. Tillis boasts a 94 percent voting score with the president, but Tucker is pouring enough money into pointing out Tillis’ perceived dalliances away from Trump that the senator felt compelled to respond with an ad barrage of his own.

Tillis acknowledges his style isn’t necessarily built to appeal to his party’s hard-liners. At a North Carolina Federation of Republican Women event, he lamented that sometimes he gets “criticized because I don’t speak too fiery or talk too angry.”

“Some people, I think, perceive my style as being something that’s soft,” he said during a 25-minute interview at the state party headquarters. “But I’ve got a good conservative track record to run on. And we believe if people know it, they know where I stand on immigration, they know where I stand to the level where the president will endorse me? We’ll win.”

These are rare moments of self-reflection for Tillis, a confident bordering on cocky 59-year-old former state House speaker who helped rebuild the North Carolina GOP. He said Trump would campaign for him in the primary if necessary but dismisses Tucker: “I don’t believe the race is even close.”

Most Republicans still feel Tillis can ride Trump’s coattails to reelection, though he risks running behind the president in a state known for close elections. GOP alarm bells go off every few years in North Carolina, sometimes warranted and sometimes not: In 2016, GOP Sen. Richard Burr was easily reelected despite running a laid-back campaign, while the Republican governor was cast out.

This year, Tucker is essentially operating as a Democratic super PAC, draining Tillis of resources and allowing national Democrats to sit back and enjoy the show. It’s a situation that most other vulnerable incumbents have avoided, but Tillis’ plight is unique, having riled up parts of Trump’s base with his limited dissent.

...Facing attacks from the right and left, Tillis harbors few regrets. He’s dropped any notion of deal-making on immigration with Democrats, walking away from 2018 talks to help Dreamers and dismissing comprehensive immigration reform as something that could happen “maybe 20 years from now” after the border is fully secured.

He even argues that his bill protecting the special counsel from a Trump firing was all about defending the president.

“I had a concern and it actually proved to be wise: to let the special counsel play out its role. Because there was no collusion and no obstruction,” Tillis said. “Obviously, I support the president. I thought, like he did, that it was a witch hunt.”

Tillis concedes he could have “probably spent more time explaining” his queasiness with Trump’s national emergency to his constituents, but doesn't disavow what in North Carolina political circles is now simply called “the op-ed.”

It’s an example of the dissonance surrounding Tillis. He tells Republican supporters he’s been with Trump “every step of the way” on the border wall but also emphasizes his willingness to take criticism from his own party.

“If all you do is take the easy way out and be silent on things that you feel strongly about institutionally, then you’re not really doing your job as a U.S. senator,” Tillis said. “I’m not going to be that person.”

It’s a difficult argument for him to make, but it doesn’t surprise close friends. Tillis is a partisan Republican, but he bristles at the idea that he’s become a rubber stamp.

“There have been times where Tillis has stopped and truly deliberated,” said Carolyn Justice, a former GOP state lawmaker and longtime ally. “People confuse that with his support for Trump overall. And that’s a mistake.”

“We live in an environment where people are out to get you if you stray one inch,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has told Trump directly that Tillis is a strong general election candidate.

Tucker says he’s put $1.5 million of his own money into the race and will put in still more, hoping to tap into what he describes as long-standing conservative dissatisfaction with Tillis.

“It wasn’t necessarily that [conservatives] were waiting for me to run, but they were waiting for someone,” Tucker said in an interview in North Raleigh, flanked by adviser Carter Wrenn, a former aide to the late firebrand conservative Sen. Jesse Helms.

As he chomped on a lit cigar, Wrenn insisted Tucker has narrowed the race to about 10 points. Tillis has put more than $2 million of his campaign money into ads attacking Tucker as someone who “lies like a dog,” and he scoffed when told of Wrenn’s account.

A recent Fox News poll showed Tillis with the support of 54 percent of primary voters, with Tucker garnering just 11 percent.

“This is Carter Wrenn’s retirement fund. That’s the only reason he’s got Garland running,” Burr said of the race.

Tillis said he’s spending early to introduce himself to the fast-growing state’s new voters who have arrived since his previous election in 2014. Public polling shows Tillis still has work to do. Public Policy Polling, Fox News and Morning Consult surveys show at least 25 percent of voters have no opinion of him, hampering his approval ratings.

“He is not really in control of how he’s defined,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster. “This double whammy of being seen as not different enough from Trump among suburbanites and not supportive enough among rural conservatives could end up being the kiss of death.”

Whether Tucker comes anywhere close to beating Tillis is irrelevant to Democrats. They are just happy that Tillis is moving further to the right and putting the 2.2 million unaffiliated voters here in play.

“Extraordinarily weak, extraordinarily vulnerable,” Cunningham said of Tillis during an interview in nearby Cary. “I’d rather be me than him right now.”

North Carolina could easily be the tipping point for the GOP’s 53-seat majority. After losing the 2010 Senate primary here, Cunningham again has a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee endorsement and is credible enough that Senate Republicans acknowledge Tillis is a top concern.

But Cunningham also has hurdles to overcome before he can face Tillis. The Fox News poll showed him trailing state Sen. Erica Smith, with Cunningham coming in at 13 percent of the vote to Smith's 18 percent.

“Every poll that has been conducted since this race started has me as the frontrunner,” Smith said.

Still, a 20-to-1 financial edge over Smith and the DSCC endorsement could prove decisive for Cunningham.

Cunningham is taking a centrist posture, distancing himself from “Medicare for All” and the suspension of deportations, while Tillis ties Cunningham relentlessly to Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. In gauging Cunningham’s chances, Tillis strikes a Trumpian note, dubbing him “Silent Cal” after tight-lipped President Calvin Coolidge.

The incumbent senator said he takes his primary “seriously” but considers Cunningham his opponent, not Tucker. Tucker retorted that since his entry in the race, Tillis is “Trump’s new best friend... he’s desperate to make the race about Trump.”

Tillis insisted he “never” directly asked Trump for his June endorsement, which followed Tucker’s campaign launch. But he’ll be damned if anyone is questioning his Trump credentials.

“We’ve got the full support of the president,” Tillis said. “You can’t start out a campaign on the premise of thinking that you’re going to support the president more” than me.

Trump Has Led The GOP Into A Death Spiral-- Last Night Was Just A Taste Of What's Coming

This morning, Aaron Blake noted at the Washington Post that "When President Trump was elected, he promised the GOP that they would win so much they would get tired of it. But for a third successive election year since then, the Republican Party has walked away the loser." Also this morning a top Democratic congressional staffer told me that she spoke to "two different Republican Hill staffers who have expressed serious concerns with how badly last night went for them. They described Virginia and Kentucky outcomes as canaries in the coal mine for 2020. Despite all the negative news and concerning polls, they were holding out hope that the DC news cycle wasn't breaking through in the rest of the country. That illusion was shattered last night and now congressional Republicans are starting to realize what it will be like to run with Trump in 2020. It appears impeachment politics aren't as catastrophic to Democrats as initially thought; the Kentucky gubernatorial race was pitted as a referendum on impeachment in a state Trump won by 30 and the incumbent Republican still lost. Trump made the election about him (which he will of course do in 2020) and the result was a complete disaster for his party." As we mentioned last night, the Democrats won and Trump lost. Even in Mississippi, in the heart of the Confederacy/Trumplandia, Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves' less-than-stellar win is dimmed when put into historical context:

• 2019- Reeves (R)- 443,063 (52.3%), Hood (D)- 394,177 (46.5%)
• 2015- Bryant (R)- 476,697 (66.4%), Gray (D)- 231,643 (32.3%)
• 2011- Bryant (R)- 544,851 (61%), DuPree (D)- 348,617 (39%)
• 2007- Barbour (R)- 430,807 (57.9%), Eaves (D)- 313,232 (42.1%)
• 2003- Barbour (R)- 470,404 (52.6%), Musgrove (D)- 409,787 (46.8%)

Reeves had the worst results of any Republican candidate in recent times. And that was the best news Trump and the GOP had yesterday.

Kentucky is one of Trump's best states. The PVI is R+15. Only Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming are redder. These are the 2016 results that were the best for Trump:

• West Virginia- 68.50, Hillary 26.43
• Wyoming- Trump 67.40%, Hillary 21.63%
• Oklahoma- Trump 65.32, Hillary 28.93%
• North Dakota- Trump 62.96%, Hillary 27.23%
• Kentucky- Trump 62.52%, Hillary 32.68%
• Alabama- Trump 62,08, Hillary 34.36%

If Trump's best effort-- and his non-stop efforts on behalf of Bevin was the best he is capable of-- couldn't win the day in Kentucky, how will Trump be able to help anyone anywhere? On Monday night Trump was in Lexington playing the role of clown on behalf of Bevin: "If you lose, they’re going to say Trump suffered the greatest defeat in the history of the world. You can’t let that happen to me!" They did. Two days before the election, Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundegan Grimes predicted that turnout would be 31%, essentially the same miserable turnout Kentucky had in the 1015 gubernatorial election (30.7%). She was way off. By yesterday 42% of eligible voters had cast ballots. It was 45% in Jefferson (Louisville) and 47% in Fayette (Lexington) counties, an increase in the two counties that put Beshear ahead of Bevin.

Moscow Mitch isn't the only Republican incumbent who slept poorly last night. GOP senators in Arizona, Maine, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia, Alaska and Montana did not sleep well last night. Last chart. This one shows Trump's net approval/disapproval in each these key Senate battleground states-- along with how much Trump's approval has fallen in each state since he occupied the White House. (It didn't rise in any state).

• Kentucky- plus 15 (down 19 points)
• Arizona- minus 4 (down 23 points)
• Maine- minus 13 (down 21 points)
• Colorado- minus 15 (down 16 points)
• Iowa- minus 14 (down 22 points)
• North Carolina- minus 3 (down)
• Georgia- plus 1 (down 17 points)
• Alaska- plus 1 (down 23 points)
• Montana- minus 3 (down 27 points)

As the AP made clear this morning "The suburban revolt against President Donald Trump’s Republican Party is growing. And if nothing else, the GOP’s struggle across the South on Tuesday revealed that Republicans don’t have a plan to fix it. In Kentucky, Trump and his allies went all in to rescue embattled Gov. Matt Bevin, who literally wrapped himself in the president’s image in his pugnacious campaign. In Virginia, embattled Republicans ran away from Trump, downplaying their support for his policies and encouraging him to stay away. In the end, neither strategy was a sure winner... [T]there’s little doubt Tuesday’s outcome is a warning to Republicans across the nation a year out from the 2020 election and a year after the 2018 midterms: The suburbs are still moving in the wrong direction."

“Republican support in the suburbs has basically collapsed under Trump,” Republican strategist Alex Conant said. “Somehow, we need to find a way to regain our suburban support over the next year.”

...[T]he GOP’s challenge was laid bare in places like Virginia’s Henrico County just outside Richmond.

Republican state Sen. Siobhan Dunnavant won there by almost 20 percentage points four years ago. The area has recently been transformed by an influx of younger, college-educated voters and minorities, a combination that’s become a recipe for Democrats’ support.

With the final votes still trickling in Tuesday night, Dunnavant was barely ahead [final: 50.88% to 48.95%] of Democrat Debra Rodman, a college professor who seized on Trump and her Republican opponent’s opposition to gun control to appeal to moderate voters.

In northern Virginia, Democrat John Bell flipped a state Senate district from red to blue in a district that has traditionally favored Republicans. The race, set in the rapidly growing and diverse counties outside of Washington, D.C., attracted nearly $2 million in political advertising.

Democrats’ surging strength in the suburbs reflects the anxiety Trump provokes among moderates, particularly women, who have rejected his scorched-earth politics and uncompromising conservative policies on health care, education and gun violence.

Republicans’ response in Virginia was to try to stay focused on local issues. In the election’s final days, Dunnavant encouraged Trump to stay out of the state. The president obliged, sending Vice President Mike Pence instead.

Struggling for a unifying message, some Republicans turned to impeachment, trying to tie local Democrats to their counterparts in Washington and the effort to impeach Trump.

No one played that card harder than Kentucky’s Bevin, who campaigned aside an “impeachment” banner and stood next to Trump on the eve of the election.

But even in ruby-red Kentucky, Trump was not a cure-all and the trouble in the suburbs emerged.

Bevin struggled in Republican strongholds across the northern part of the state, where the Democrats’ drift and increased enthusiasm was clear.

In 2015, Bevin won Campbell County south of Cincinnati handily. On Tuesday, Beshear not only carried the county with ease, he nearly doubled the number of Democratic votes there, compared to the Democratic nominee of four years ago. Beshear also found another 74,000 Democratic votes in urban Jefferson County, home of Louisville.

Beshear led Bevin by the narrowest of margins Tuesday night.

Republicans were quick to blame Bevin for his stumbles. The governor was distinctly unpopular and picked fights with powerful interests in the state. Still, it was difficult for Republicans not to note the warning signs for the party next year and beyond.

“They continue to lose needed support in suburban districts, especially among women and college-educated voters,” said Republican strategist Rick Tyler. “That trend, if not reversed, is a death spiral.”

Democratic enthusiasm and turnout was sky-high in Kentucky and Virginia, where Democrats ran on Democratic issues and values. In Mississippi, where the fake-Democrat ran on a repulsive anti-Choice/pro-NRA, GOP-lite record, there was no enthusiasm and Democratic turnout was terrible. (As I noted last night, even in New Jersey's only state Senate race-- the one to replace Blue Dog ass-wipe Jeff Van Drew-- Van Drew's handpicked right-wing candidate, Bob Andrzejczak, ran on a GOP-lite record and lost to the real Republican, Mike Testa 27,163 (53.47%) to 23,636 (46.53%). Count on the Democrats-- especially the DCCC-- to absolutely not learn a lesson from this.

The were local races all over the country and the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on how dismally they went for Republicans in Pennsylvania. "The political forces that shaped last year’s midterm elections," wrote Julia Terruso, showed no signs of abating Tuesday, as voters turned on Republicans and establishment Democrats alike in races from Philadelphia and Scranton to the suburbs of Delaware and Chester Counties... Locally, Democrats will hold all five seats on the Delaware County Council, a Republican stronghold since the Civil War, and also assumed a majority on the legislative body in Chester County. In Bucks County, Democrats also held a late lead for control of the board of commissioners in a close race. And in Philadelphia, a third-party insurgent candidate weakened an already marginalized GOP by securing one of the at-large City Council seats reserved for minority parties-- a seat Republicans have held for decades. 'It’s a new day in Delaware County,' said Elaine Schaefer, one of three Democrats elected Tuesday in Delaware County. Democrats had never held a majority on the county council in its history, let alone every seat."

We Met The Enemy And They Are Us by Nancy Ohanian

In Virginia and Kentucky Republicans did everything they could to tie Democrats to Bernie and AOC and to "Socialism!!" and the Green New Deal. The backfired for them badly. In Kentucky the top coal counties are Pike, Harlan, Hopkins, Muhlenberg, Perry, Letchner, Floyd, Union, Knott, Webster and Ohio. Trump beat Hillary in every one of them in 2016-- and by a lot. But in the primaries, Bernie won these counties. In Pike Co. Trump won with 80.1%. It was 77.2% in Perry, 72.0% in Muhlenberg and 84.9% in Harlan County.

Hillary won the Kentucky primary, entirely because of the black turn-out for her in Louisville and Lexington. But she was swamped in every one of the coal counties. Bernie beat her. But Bernie also beat Trump in every one of these counties

Pike- Bernie- 4,848, Hillary- 2,335, Trump- 840
Harlan- Bernie- 1,092, Hillary- 451, Trump- 189
Hopkins- Bernie-2,696 , Hillary- 1,690, Trump- 574
Muhlenberg- Bernie- 1,632, Hillary- 1,544, Trump- 338
Perry- Bernie- 1,666, Hillary- 839, Trump- 421
Letchner- Bernie- 1,788, Hillary- 838, Trump- 410
Floyd- Bernie- 4,010, Hillary- 2,327, Trump- 278
Union- Bernie- 1,106, Hillary- 672, Trump- 92
Knott- Bernie- 1,114, Hillary- 583, Trump- 37
Webster- Bernie- 1,169, Hillary- 693, Trump- 116
Ohio- Bernie- 943, Hillary- 778, Trump- 663

Last night, Beshear won some coal counties and lost some-- but out-performed Hillary massively in all these counties. The biggest coal county in the state is Pike. Beshear took 42.94% compared to Hillary's 17.4%. Beshear won Floyd County with 52.56% and won Knott County with 49.43% compared with 24.3% for Hillary in Floyd and 21.6% for Hillary in Knott.

That billboard was produced and placed by the DSCC, attempting to tie state Senator Erica Smith--the progressive running for the North Carolina U.S. Senate seat-- to AOC and Rashida Tlaib. They produced similar campaigns against Andrew Romanoff in Colorado and Betsy Sweet in Maine. This morning Erica turned the tables on them and ran the billboard as part of a fundraising appeal for herself!

"Republicans," she wrote, "aren't the only ones engaging in rigging elections and suppressing the will of voters in our state. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has been rigging the US Senate race in NC for far too long and it has had disastrous effects on Democracy. They recruited their endorsed candidate after he had been campaigning for Lieutenant Governor for a year. The DSCC doesn't want the people of North Carolina to choose their next Senator. They would prefer a 4 term Senator from New York to tell you how to vote! It didn't work in 2010 when they did the same thing with the same Democratic candidate. Together, we can make sure they don't get another chance to corrode our progressive coalition! 

• People are rationing their insulin and other life-saving medication because they can't afford it.
• Refusal to expand Medicaid reduces the leverage that lawmakers have to negotiate down drug prices.
• The wealthiest 1% receive the bulk of the benefits of our tax code while hard-working Americans continue to lose leverage with their tax dollars.

"If my devotion to your voice and these platforms for progress are considered radical," she concluded, "then sign me up! It should not be radical to amplify the voices of the people over the powerful. Help us continue to spread the good word of the Erica For Us Campaign by giving what you can. This is the people's campaign, now more than ever!"

Erica Smith Is Out-Polling Cal Cunningham But Schumer Prefers A Conservative White Man To A Progressive Black Woman

Yesterday, the DSCC officially endorsed middle of the road loser, Cal Cunningham for the North Carolina U.S. Senate seat occupied by Trump ass-kisser Thom Tillis. Cunningham, however, is in a tight primary battle with popular state Senator Eric Smith, who currently leads him in the polls. Smith's campaign has had it with Chuck Schumer, who has been making these kinds of suicide plays all over the country-- starving progressive candidates like Betsy Sweet (Maine), Maggie Toulouse Oliver (NM)-- who ended her campaign this week-- and Andrew Romanoff (Colorado) of institutional Democratic support and funding. Even though these progressives are all far more union-oriented than their GOP-lite primary opponents, Schumer has been largely successful in preventing union financial support from flowing their way.

Friday, the Erica Smith campaign went on record with what she thinks of Schumer and his tactics. "Today’s endorsement by the DSCC," she wrote, "removes the false veil of neutrality and confirms their attempt to sway this US Senate election away from the voices and voters of North Carolina. I have been in and out of sessions, all day, doing the work of the people of North Carolina. I am responding during the sixth recess and adjournment of the day! This Halloween endorsement is a trick and not a treat for North Carolinians."

The DSCC has been unofficially backing Cal Cunningham as their ‘heir apparent’ with personnel, resources, directed donations, infrastructure, and more since he entered the race in June. We have made multiple overtures to the DSCC about their under the table support for my primary opponent and they told us, unequivocally, that they were not, had not, did not intend to endorse in the Primary. In fact, I met one-on-one with the DSCC Executive Director in August and he assured us that the DSCC was not making any efforts in the North Carolina Primary. Our objective has always been to allow the voters-- and the voters only-- to be the decision makers in this primary election. The failure of the DSCC to disclose their ongoing support for Mr. Cunningham’s campaign puts their thumb on the scale of our democracy and mutes the voice of North Carolina Voters. This is unacceptable.

Enumerated evidence of DSCC support prior to formal endorsement:

•Devan Barber:

◦ Cal Cunningham’s campaign manager, was the Deputy Executive Director of the DSCC up until July 2019. Shortly thereafter, she suddenly becomes Cal’s campaign manager.
◦ Barber was also the political director at End Citizens United, who also endorsed Cal Cunningham over me despite Cal being in receipt of PAC money in 2011 while he worked with a major developer. Mr. Cunningham is, in fact, the only candidate in this campaign that has welcomed the support of Super PACs.

•Senator Chuck Schumer

He's also an idiot who gets it wrong most of the time

In the second fundraising quarter of this year, prior to any endorsement from the DSCC, Sen. Schumer directed 55 of his very wealthy donors to contribute the maximum allowed donation to my opponent’s campaign-- totaling $152,000. All these donors have prior giving history to Sen. Schumer and had never given to Mr. Cunningham. These New York-based donations constitute more than a third of the total money raised by the Cunningham campaign, at that time.

  •Unauthorized Email list sharing

There have been multiple reported instances of people being placed on Mr. Cunningham’s mailing list despite them never signing up to receive his fundraising emails. These same people reported recently signing up with either the North Carolina Democratic Party or the DSCC. This may run afoul of campaign finance law and the Cunningham campaign should immediately cease this practice or disclose how these lists were acquired in accordance with the law.

An Emerson poll in June showed me beating incumbent Thom Tillis by 7 points. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Cunningham was recruited by some who would consider themselves Democratic establishment to run for this statewide office. Three other polls conducted since June show that I remain in the lead! In the last independent statewide poll conducted by Meredith College, I am leading Thom Tillis, but Mr. Cunningham is trailing me and Tillis. This is after Cunningham has raised $1.7 million, and reported spending $47,000 on digital advertising. Having been outraised 12 to 1 by my opponent, I am still leading the field. That tells me that the voters support me over Cal. I am ahead of every candidate, including incumbent Senator Thom Tillis, in EVERY poll that has been conducted since this contest started and have yet to spend a dime on advertising.

This endorsement cuts to the integrity and ethics of this election. If the DSCC has been involved all along, then it should disclose the details of its prior involvement to the voters of North Carolina. Ultimately, the voters of North Carolina will decide who their next United States Senator will be-- NOT a handful of DC politicians making back room deals in windowless basements.

In the spirit of Shirley Chisholm, I am Unbought and Unbossed. I am One of US for ALL of US! The big tent party of inclusion is how the Democratic Party became the party of the people. Our diversity makes us strong-- our unity keeps us rising!  We remain the most qualified, progressive frontrunner in this race.  We continue working for US and for an America that works for US. We are “In It to Win It” and we’ll see you on the trail! 

Money Money Money Makes Chuck Schumer's World Go Round

Picture Chuck Schumer playing either Liza Minnelli or Joel Grey in this 1972 film, released while he was still in law school, earning a law degree he never used once, going straight into vacuuming up money from special interests to finance his grubby political career. And now, he's demanding that other Democrats do the same-- or else. In 2006 Schumer was a loyal Harry Reid henchman and ran the DSCC. One race I remember well was when he recruited a pointless party hack, John Morrison, a Wall Street puppet then serving as Montana state auditor. Progressives were all in on state Senate president Jon Tester who ran a populist campaign and cursed out Schumer, who proclaimed he was too liberal to win in Montana, daily. Despite all Schumer's efforts and sabotage-- including demanding all institutional money go to Morrison--Tester beat Morrison/Schumer overwhelmingly, 60.77% to 35.48%. Tester then went on to prove Schumer wrong in November by beating Republican incumbent Conrad Burns 199,845 (49.16%) to 196,283 (48.29%). Schumer was certain Tester would lose for two reasons:

1- Schumer hates progressives with all his being
2- Burns outspent Tester, $9,167,154 to $5,587,467

That easily describes Schumer's perspective in every Senate race since then. He recruits conservatives to and tells them the only thing that matters is money. He's often wrong, but being wrong has never stopped Chuck Schumer. Yesterday, writing for the National Review, Jack Crowe reported that Schumer has been up to his old tricks in North Carolina, working to make sure a conservative lackey gets the nomination in case an anti-Trump wave is big enough to take out Republican incumbent Thom Tillis. Ideas, character and values have no place in Schumerian electoral calculus-- just national trends and money for mass media. It's like he's still living in the era Cabaret won its 8 Oscars (Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Original Song, Best Art Direction and Best Sound. The Godfather won Best Picture, not a dishonorable loss. A leaked tape shows that Schumer, wrote Crowe, "has taken a heavy-handed, top-down approach to selecting Democrats to challenge vulnerable Senate Republicans this cycle, putting his thumb on the scale for candidates willing to shun grassroots outreach in favor of a smile-and-dial, fundraising-first approach."

In the recording, taken during a September 26 talk at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, North Carolina state senator Jeff Jackson describes the experience of courting Schumer while he was considering running for the Democratic nomination to challenge the state’s incumbent Republican senator, Thom Tillis, in 2020.

Jackson had grand ambitions: When he flew to Washington to meet with Schumer earlier this year, he told the minority leader that he was going to do “100 town halls in 100 days” and talk to as many North Carolinians as possible to get a feel for the electorate’s priorities. But Schumer, who had previously dispatched his staff to meet with Jackson at his home, had other plans.

“Wrong answer,” Schumer said when confronted with Jackson’s grassroots strategy, according to the account of their conversation Jackson gave at UNC Charlotte. “We want you to spend the next 16 months in a windowless basement raising money and then we’re going to spend 80 percent of it on negative ads about Tillis.”

Jackson explained that, while he didn’t technically require Schumer’s support to run, the minority leader’s control over the funds disbursed by major donors and the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), made running without his support an impossibility.

  “So, did I need his permission to run for that race? No,” Jackson said during his address at UNC Charlotte. “But talking to my family and seeing the opportunity we have-- sort of the obligation we have to try and take the majority to end gerrymandering in 2020-- and realizing that I probably wasn’t going to have the support of this group, which is important financially because I ain’t rich... I mean, they kind of tipped the scales in favor of not running.”

And if the lack of funding wasn’t enough, Jackson said he was turned off by Schumer’s insistence on running an entirely negative campaign against the incumbent, Tillis-- a preference that Jackson attributed to “artistic differences” between himself and the minority leader during his UNC talk.

Instead of Jackson, Schumer and national Democrats are throwing their considerable support behind Cal Cunningham, a former state legislator and Army veteran who, in apparent accordance with Schumer’s wishes, has given just three interviews since announcing his candidacy in June. Reached for comment, Cunningham’s spokesman denied that the candidate has eschewed public appearances and grassroots activism in favor of fundraising.

...A copy of Cunningham’s campaign schedule obtained by National Review lists 18 appearances at various barbecues, galas, and church services from August 10 to September 29. During his remarks at UNC, Jackson dismissed these appearances as meaningless window-dressing compared to the town halls he’d planned for his own campaign.

“Yes,” Jackson said when asked if Cunningham has been in “a windowless basement” since announcing his candidacy. “He hasn’t held a public event. He didn’t have a kickoff. This is like month three. He goes to Democratic-party events if you follow him, right-- places where they’re going to say, ‘And everybody, Cal Cunningham is here!’ And he gets to be like, ‘Hey!’” (Jackson did not respond to a request for comment, but announced his endorsement of Cunningham hours after he was contacted and learned of the existence of the audio recording.)

...Cunningham’s chief primary rival, state senator Erica Smith, who announced her candidacy roughly five months before him, has already taken note of the national party’s intrusion in the race.

“The special interest groups and big, wealthy donors out of New York are trying to buy this Senate seat, and it’s just shameful and it is embarrassing,” she told Crabtree. “I just worry about the people I serve in North Carolina. We don’t have the same demographics as New York, and this Senate seat is not for sale.”

Reached by phone, Smith lashed out at Schumer and the DSCC for being dishonest about their support for Cunningham, telling National Review that Schumer’s public and private stances on candidates were “diametrically opposed.” She claimed that shortly before she learned Cunningham was fundraising off of the DSCC’s email list, Schumer had assured her that he had not endorsed any particular candidate and would remain agnostic for the time being.

Smith also pointed out that in addition to avoiding appearances, Cunningham appears to be avoiding public-policy commitments altogether. The only information or interactive features on his website concern donations.

“We can’t find his policy positions either,” Smith tweeted in August in response to a message one constituent wrote about the difficulty she’s had in identifying where Cunningham stands on any policy she cares about.

The same pattern, in which Democratic leadership handpicks a preferred candidate to run against a vulnerable Senate Republican, is also playing out in Maine and Iowa. [Jack Crowe appears to have forgotten Colorado, where Schumer has decided the Democratic nominee will be Frackenlooper and has demanded that unions directly their contributions to him and not to Andrew Romanoff, who many working people prefer by a very wide margin.]

In Maine, incumbent Republican senator Susan Collins is sure to face a tough reelection amid the liberal backlash to her support for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Schumer and the DSCC have made clear that their preferred candidate is state House speaker Sarah Gideon. Like Cunningham, Gideon has carefully avoided the spotlight and policy commitments. And like Cunningham, she’s benefited from her deference to Washington: She raised more than $1 million in the first ten days after she announced her candidacy in June, and she’s reaped the high-profile endorsements that follow from being taken under Schumer’s wing.

Like Cunningham’s opponent, Smith, Gideon’s opponent, Betsy Sweet, has taken notice.

“An open letter to Democratic leadership,” reads an August fundraising email from Sweet’s campaign. “How many times. How many times are you going to interfere with primary races by picking an opponent before the people do?”

In Iowa, it’s Theresa Greenfield, a real-estate-development executive and first-time candidate, who has been chosen to follow the Schumer playbook. The DSCC endorsed Greenfield just three days after she announced her candidacy in June, shunning J. D. Scholten, who vaulted to national acclaim last year after nearly beating the racist Republican representative Steve King in the state’s fourth district.

“We don’t need a primary,” Schumer reportedly told Scholten on a phone call at the end of May.

Michael Franken is the best of the Iowa senatorial candidates-- but not Schumer's favorite. So Schumer is trying to destroy his campaign by telling donors to not give him any money and by working hard to get a candidate nominated who is only known for her own corruption, a candidate who can't win. "Iowans," said Franken, "are first-on-deck in choosing Presidential nominees, so we should be more than capable of picking the best U.S. Senate candidate, as well. I didn’t ask a party chief’s permission to serve my country for many decades and I shouldn’t need to ask permission to continue that record of service in the US Senate."

New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a candidate for the empty U.S. Senate seat in her state, made a reputation for herself as a successful corruption fighter. That's a major turn-off for Schumer, who is more afraid of reformers than Dracula is of garlic. This morning Maggie told us that "The Washington establishment wants to keep big money in politics and keep progressive leaders out. That's not how democracy works. Voters-- not Chuck Schumer, not special interests, not corporations--choose their elected leaders. All the money in the world isn't enough to buy establishment leaders the bold vision and core values that voters want. I'm not running on big money or poll-tested talking points. I'm running to make sure every American has health care; to finally address the climate crisis; and to get big money out of politics once and for all."

The three billboards above-- in Colorado, Maine and North Carolina-- appear to be the work of the NRSC, even if they really look like they were designed and played by Little Chucky Schmucky. My dream for 2022: Schumer vs AOC. I pledge to max out.

Will Schumer Keep The Democrats From Winning Back The Senate?

There are some really excellent Democrats running for the Senate this cycle-- and some real dreck. Schumer has always had a nose for the dreck-- especially when their opponents are progressive. Schumer's biggest fear isn't about Republicans winning-- it's always about independent-minded Democrats winning and spoiling his nice little racket inside the Democratic caucus. This year his top priorities are stopping progressives like Andrew Romanoff (D-CO), Maggie Toulouse Oliver (D-NM), Erica Smith (D-NC), Teresa Tomlinson (D-GA) and Gloria Tinubu (D-SC), while pushing more conservative candidates who know how to take orders for political bosses like... Chuck Schumer.

In 2010 Schumer broke more ground on manipulating Senate primaries, when he wasted more than a million dollars in party money against Admiral Joe Sestak in the Pennsylvania Senate Primary. Rep. Sestak (D-PA) was the highest ranking military officer ever to serve in Congress; Schumer couldn’t care less.  Schumer interfered in the Democratic Senate Primary to try to keep his corrupt promise to clear the Democratic Primary for “Magic Bullet” Sen. Arlen Specter (who had concocted a fantasy theory about the bullet that killed JFK in order to end an investigation into the assassination). This was after Specter demonstrated his fealty to Schumer and Reid by switching parties, thereby earning the enmity of every voter in the state.

Schumer spent party money against Sestak again in 2016, and also against Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), a three-term progressive champion who had passed more laws in 2012-2016 than any other Member of Congress, despite GOP control of the House.  (Grayson also pioneered “People Power” fundraising; he was the only Member of the House to raise most of his campaign funds from small donors.) Schumer anointed hapless Rep. Patrick Murphy instead, whose only claim to fame was that he had lied about providing post-hurricane relief in the Gulf of Mexico by taking a picture of himself dressed as a sailor, standing on a boat docked in Connecticut. Murphy spent all his time in Congress vacuuming up corrupt Wall Street money, just like Schumer. (In fact, Murphy outraised the GOP Chair of the House Finance Committee.) According to Murphy’s Super PAC chief, Murphy’s rich father promised Schumer and Reid $10 million ($5 million from him, and $5 million from his rich friends) if they delivered the nomination to Murphy, and actually placed a $10 million September/October/November TV buy to make that credible.

Reid attacked Grayson personally and demanded that he drop out of the race, while Reid and Schumer planted "hit pieces" in national media against Grayson. Schumer personally called both Grayson and Sestak donors, demanding that they pull the plug on their support. And the DSCC employed the now-familiar ploy of trying to get vendors and consultants to boycott the campaigns. For instance, Grayson’s direct-mail fundraising company not only refused to work on the Senate campaign, but wouldn’t even provide Grayson with a list of previous Grayson contributors, specifically citing pressure from the DSCC. Grayson’s media consultant was offered a $1 million buy for another campaign-- if he stopped working with Grayson. The Senate Democratic Super PAC laundered money from Murphy’s father to run ads for Murphy in the primary, touting the party’s endorsement.

In both Pennsylvania and Florida-- not to mention the Ohio catastrophe-- Schumer’s hand-picked candidates failed miserably. The candidate whom Schumer anointed in Pennsylvania had come in fourth (in single-digits) in the primary for Governor just two years earlier. Pennsylvania voters sniffed her out as a Schumer puppet, and defeated her. In Florida, Murphy had to spend $7 million just to win the primary.  In the general election, the promised money from his father never showed up, and week after week, as the payment deadline on the TV buy approached, Daddy Buy was canceled. CBS Miami tagged Murphy as a habitual liar, and he ran seven points behind Clinton in Florida. (An interesting subplot arose after Murphy had leaked secret audio from a Clinton fundraiser in Florida to make it look like Clinton favored him in the primary. Clinton got over any ill-feelings from the leak when Murphy made a $1 million contribution to Clinton’s Super PAC-- which Murphy paid for by selling his stock in his father’s company.)

Both Pennsylvania and Florida in 2016 demonstrated that Schumer had the power to foist turds on Democratic primary voters-- and then see them stink up the joint in the general election, with Republicans winning both seats. But... anything is better in Schumer's mind than an independent-minded Democrat like Grayson or Sestak.

North Carolina state Senator Erica Smith is the progressive-- not the Schumer-- candidate running for the Democratic nomination to oppose Trump enabler Thom Tillis next year. She has a great reputation from her service in the legislature and polling shows her beating Tillis by 7 points. So what's Schumer's problem? I asked Erica.

"I liken Schumer’s reported interference into primary elections across the nation to the college admissions scandal," she told me. "If the less progressive, less qualified, less competent candidates that he appears to favor were electable on merit-- he would not need to prop them up with exorbitant sums of money from his personal campaign list of wealthy Wall Street donors. A three-judge Superior Court panel just ruled in a case of paramount importance to the voters of North Carolina with national implications for partisan gerrymandering. On page 320 of the Common Cause vs. Lewis decision, the opinion states 'There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in the election of our political leaders'-- including of course, the right to 'vote.' McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185, 191, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 1440 (2014).  The voters of North Carolina have fought for uninhibited voting rights for the last eight years in this case, and after this historic victory will not willingly abdicate this right. The voters of North Carolina and every other state should be the only people deciding the elections in Primaries and otherwise. The will of the people to support progressive candidates should never be commandeered by incumbent leaders, or Party and Caucus officials and their predilection for 'Republican-like moderates.' This is completely antithetical to who we are as a big tent, party of inclusion. We recognize that Party infrastructure is necessary for our collective success. However, we are hopeful that these resources are fairly allocated based on voters’ decisions and not coerced ones based on forced acceptance of big money backed establishment choices. There are many party insiders who feel the DSCC's backing of Cal Cunningham in the 2010 US Senate race over the more experienced, progressive, woman candidate Elaine Marshall resulted in a fracture in the Party leading to a general election defeat to Richard Burr, who has served in the US Senate ever since. Secretary Marshall defeated the DSCC backed candidate twice, by almost 10% points in the primary and by double that percentage in a subsequent run off. To say that there remain a fair amount of festering unhealed wounds nine years later is modest. With the state of politics in our state and nation as a whole today, a repeat of 2010 will have more than destructive aftershocks that will be felt across the country, it may very well be the death knell to Democracy once and for all." 

Isn't It Congress' Solemn Duty To Impeach Trump? What The Hell Are They Waiting For?

Funding Trump's concentration camps was inexcusable and horrific and every Democrat who voted to follow Pelosi into it has to live with that-- as do their constituents who vote to reelect them next year. Refusing to impeach Trump, the worst criminal in the history of the American presidency by far, is another issue legislators will have to live with for their whole lives. I would never, under any circumstance, vote for someone who hasn't come out clearly and publicly in favor of impeaching him. Their careers are important to them and their families-- but the country should come first, especially on a matter as existential as this one is.

Every now and then the real Tulsi Gabbard pops out-- as it did yesterday on the premiere of Greta Van Susteren's new show, Full Court Press (KTLA here in Los Angeles, KPIX in New York City and KHNL and KGMB in Honolulu). The Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate-- who once applied for a cabinet post in the Trump regime-- said she opposes impeachment: "I think it’s important for us to think about what is in the best interest of the country and the American people, and continuing to pursue impeachment is something that I think will only further to tear our country apart." She couldn't be more wrong about what's in the best interest of the country, which is exactly why the Founders put impeachment into the Constitution.

Michael Owens is running for a suburban Atlanta seat currently occupied by a Trump-friendly Blue Dog, David Scott. Micael doesn't see this the way Tulsi-- or David Scott-- sees it. "Over 130 members of Congress, a majority of the House Democrats," he told me this morning, "understand that it is their constitutional responsibility to pursue an impeachment inquiry. I agree with them that we must begin an inquiry. No one is above the law and with the investigation of Mueller-- and in some cases, Trumps own admissions-- there should be enough to start the inquiry and allow the process to uncover the obstruction and myriad of other things that will come to light. I'm dissappointed, that my opponent, hasn't signed on and continues to remain silent on this issue. Our district is a solid blue district that is calling for change. Impeaching Trump will not immediately fix everything. But impeachment is an investigative process that allows Americans to uncover and see the corruption and greed of this administration and begin restoring faith in this democracy at home and worldwide."

Marie Newman is also running for a solid blue seat held by a Trump-friendly Blue Dog, Dan Lipinski, who opposes impeaching Trump. "For me," she said today, "this is simple, the overwhelming majority in my district believe serious crimes have been committed and  they want impeachment inquiries to start. I stand with my district."

On Friday, Politico's early morning team wrote that "There’s a multi-faceted divide in the Democratic caucus right now but it can easily be broken down like this: From what we can tell, most every Democrat wants to impeach Trump. For the most part, those who are not publicly saying they support impeachment believe the politics do not break in the Democrats’ favor. Few Dems these days oppose impeachment on the merits." In other words, instead of doing what they think is right for the country, they are following Pelosi and her disgraceful-- disgusting-- political calculus that breaks down basically to worrying about reelction bids of half a dozen Blue Dogs in red seats, all of them cowardly scum who vote consistently badly and don't belong in Congress in any case.

Later in the day, 3 other Politico reporters wrote about how Jerry Nadler's beleaguered House Judiciary Committee is struggling with this. Kyle Cheney, Heather Caygle and John Bresnahan pointed out that the committee "is preparing to take its first formal vote to define what Chairman Jerry Nadler calls an ongoing 'impeachment investigation' of President Donald Trump, according to multiple sources briefed on the discussions. The panel could vote as early as Wednesday on a resolution to spell out the parameters of its investigation. The precise language is still being hammered out inside the committee and with House leaders. A draft of the resolution is expected to be released Monday morning."

The issue was raised Friday during a conference call among the committee's Democrats. A source familiar with the discussion said any move next week would be intended to increase the “officialness” of the ongoing probe, following a six-week summer recess in which some Democrats struggled to characterize to their constituents that the House had already begun impeachment proceedings. Democrats are hopeful that explicitly defining their impeachment inquiry will heighten their leverage to compel testimony from witnesses.

Though the language of the resolution is still in flux, some sources said it could incorporate elements of traditional impeachment probes, such as offering access to the president's attorneys or providing for more time to question witnesses. There was discussion among some Democrats on Friday’s call about the strength of the language in the resolution, according to sources briefed on the call.

Advocates of opening a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump have clamored for the Judiciary Committee to more clearly spell out the contours of its investigation-- a move they hope strengthens the House’s hand in a handful of court cases to obtain evidence and testimony against the president.

In early August, Nadler publicly declared that his committee had already launched impeachment proceedings despite taking no formal vote to do so. The claim sparked confusion, even among some Democrats, who sought clarification as they faced questions from progressive constituents about the status of the House's effort to recommend Trump's removal from office.

The committee has also repeatedly described an ongoing “impeachment investigation” in court filings submitted during the recess, part of legal efforts to compel testimony from witnesses to allegations that Trump attempted to obstruct an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. By declaring impeachment under active consideration, the committee has sought to convince judges of the urgency of providing Democrats with the evidence they're seeking.

But Republicans on the committee protested loudly that impeachment proceedings require a vote, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi's resistance to a formal impeachment inquiry-- despite her support of the Judiciary Committee's legal filings-- has complicated the House's posture further.

In addition to probing potential obstruction of justice by Trump, the Judiciary Committee is weighing allegations that Trump directed hush money payments to women accusing him of extramarital affairs in the weeks before the 2016 election, as well as evidence that Trump has sought to steer U.S. and foreign government spending to his luxury resorts, raising questions about whether he has violated the Constitution's Emoluments Clause.

Until now, Trump-related investigations had been a patchwork effort by six congressional committees. The Ways and Means Committee, for example, is pursuing Trump's tax returns in court. The Financial Services Committee and Intelligence Committee are seeking Trump's financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One. The Foreign Affairs Committee has sought details about Trump's interactions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who the intelligence community has assessed sought to boost Trump's 2016 electoral prospects. And the Oversight Committee had initially taken the lead on allegations about hush money payments, calling Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen to testify in February before he went to prison on charges connected to the scheme.

The Judiciary Committee had mostly kept focused on obstruction of justice and the fallout from former special counsel Robert Mueller's report, made public in April, that revealed hundreds of contacts between Russians and Trump campaign associates, as well as repeated attempts by Trump to constrain or shut down the probe altogether. Mueller testified publicly to the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in late July, days before the House departed for its six-week recess.

But his testimony uncorked a surge of support for launching formal impeachment proceedings. More than half of the House's 235 Democrats now support taking that step. The number has grown steadily, even after Nadler suggested impeachment proceedings had begun.

But the momentum has been tempered by Pelosi, who warned Democrats in an Aug. 23 call that public sentiment hasn't kept pace. Polls show most Americans still generally oppose opening impeachment proceedings, even though Democratic voters largely support the move.

Many of the Democrats who declared support for an impeachment inquiry did so because they said it would help break through Trump's stonewalling of the six committee investigations. They argued that without formal impeachment proceedings, Trump could continue to claim blanket immunity for his top aides and allies, preventing them from testifying or complying with congressional subpoenas. Trump has blocked several of his most senior aides-- including former officials who provided some of Mueller's most damaging testimony-- from speaking to Congress.

They include former White House counsel Don McGahn, who told Mueller about multiple attempts by Trump to have the special counsel removed and described an atmosphere of chaos in the West Wing shortly after Mueller's appointment. They also include former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, who provided limited testimony to the committee but refused to discuss her tenure in the White House.

Candidates elected in 2020 are unlikely to have to deal with impeachment because it is highly unlikely Trump will be reelected. But it is still valuable to know how they feel about impeachment when deciding whether or not to support them. So I asked a few, including some from extremely difficult districts.

Late last June, Teresa Tomlinson, the progressive candidate in the race for the Georgia Senate seat held by avid Trump enabler David Perdue, used her Kos diary to advance the need to impeach Trump. "I am a lawyer who has worked my entire life fighting for justice and the rule of law. I’ve read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and all 448 pages of the Mueller Report. And I’ve heard the President’s own disturbing and destabilizing words. I have no doubt it’s time for Congress to begin impeachment hearings against President Trump. Even if impeachment results in his acquittal in the Senate, it is the legislative duty of our elected officials to lead in accordance with the oath they swore to defend our Constitution."

It’s not about nullifying or affecting an election: it’s about ensuring power is checked and checked immediately before future abuses occur. The Constitution requires the impeachment process from Congress if, in the words of the Founding Fathers, the President has "abused their confidence.” A president is subject to impeachment when they have "proved themselves to be unworthy of the confidence" placed in them. The Founding Fathers say allowing a President who has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors (which actually means “misdeeds”) to avoid impeachment brings “disgrace” on the Congress for failing to act. (See Federalist Papers, No. 66).

What we miss is that the impeachment process is not destabilizing or partisan, as the refusals to pursue it suggests. The impeachment process is elucidating and cathartic to the public and it actually fortifies our system. Thwarting our constitutional checks and balances for polls or election strategy demeans an important underpinning of a representative republic.

...The U.S. Constitution is the greatest civic document the world has known. Let’s use it.

North Carolina state Senator Erica Smith is the progressive Democrat running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Trump ally and rubber-stamp Thom Tillis. She was living in Crystal City when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton on spurious charges and she's told ne she read the entire Mueller Report and felt disgusted by Trump’s "commission of ten impeachable offenses, continuous acts of obstruction, disgraceful conduct, speech, and prideful pontification of 'grabbing women by the p-parts', paying off prostitutes with hush money and denials of his predatory conduct toward past women based on their appearance [and saw] "the overwhelming substantive evidence of his misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance. Impeachment proceedings," she said, "must commence, with deliberate speed and predilection. I, personally, would like to see him defeated in 2020 and tried as a private citizen and imprisoned for his crimes against humanity and our country. However, as our military has court-martialed officers and criminal courts have tried, convicted and imprisoned every day citizens who’ve committed far fewer and less egregious crimes than President Trump-- he should be impeached!"

Brianna Wu is running for a Boston area seat where voters are much less inclined to trust Trump than the current congressman, New Dem Stephen Lynch. "This is not about tactics or strategy," said Brainna. "This is about the survival of our republic. Does the Constitution still matter? Does the rule of law still apply? If we don’t act now to hold Trump accountable, history will judge us harshly. The political gamesmanship that delayed impeachment hearings is why Americans don’t trust either party. We have to be bold, and honest and vulnerable with the people that are trusting us to do our constitutional duty. I don’t know what will happen with pursuing impeachment, but I am certain what will happen if we do not."

In another up-for-grabs district in the suburbs of Atlanta, Marqus Cole is running in an open seat. He said that "Even in a swing district, I recognize that my unique position as a former prosecutor allows me some latitude to be completely honest. An un-indicted co-conspirator to a federal crime currently resides in the White House. Full stop. Further, the ongoing and public pouring of tax dollars into the President’s private companies is a full blown scandal. Finally, the ten (10) acts of obstruction documented by the Mueller investigation all lead me to the reasonable conclusion that the House should exercise its constitutional power to initiate impeachment proceedings. Leave it to Moscow Mitch and Senators up for re-election to determine if they will put party over country."

Eva Putzova is in a hot primary race in Arizona. The incumbent, Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran, is a former Republican state legislature pretending to be a Democrat but opposing impeachment. Eva sees the need to uphold the rule of law by impeaching Trump. "If House Democrats," she told me, "think that President Trump has committed impeachable offenses they have the constitutional obligation to initiate impeachment proceedings. Otherwise, what value are they putting on the 'rule of law?'  When I am elected to Congress, and if Trump is still in office, I will support his impeachment based on the evidence collected so far, including obstruction of justice as described in the Mueller Report, and his clear violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. Our obligation is to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States...,' not ignore that obligation in order to get re-elected. Serving people should be our representatives' top priority and that also means holding our president accountable. I personally believe that the House leadership's political calculation is also misguided and agree with Laurence Tribe: 'An impeached Trump who escapes conviction in the Senate will be weaker in 2020 than a Trump who can brag that not even a Democratically controlled House could impeach him. And GOP Senators who give him a pass will be easier to defeat than ones who’re spared any need to be counted.'"

Morgan Harper is running for the Columbus, Ohio House seat (OH-03) occupied by old skool moderate Democrat Joyce Beatty. She was waffling on impeachment before Morgan announce her candidacy but tried jumping on the band wagon once she realized she was been primaries. "Donald Trump has broken the law," Morgan said resolutely, "and is a threat to our country every day he remains in office. I have been clear since the day I launched my campaign that we should impeach him. Getting rid of him is a top priority for many people I meet in Franklin County."

Rachel Ventura is running for a Chicagoland seat held by conservative New Dem Bill Foster. This morning, Rachel told us that "Like many Democrats, Bill Foster weighed the politics of impeachment as more important than holding the president of the United States accountable for clear violations of the emoluments clause. Trump has from the beginning of his administration, used his office for private gain, from his hotel in D.C. to his resort Mar-a-Lago in Florida, favorable treatment for his and his family’s trademarks by China and continued business with foreign nationals while serving as president. These are direct violation of the emoluments clause. And until the political calculus changed and I entered the race to give voters in Illinois’ 11th Congressional District a stronger voice, Bill Foster voted against impeachment at least four times. On August 28th, he switched his position and decided to support impeachment. We can’t afford to wait for someone who is always doing the political calculus, especially on the burning issue of climate change where scientists have given us as short as 18 months to act. Are voters really going to endure another decade of inaction on healthcare reform from someone who, at his core opposes Medicare for All? I will be a strong leader with a moral compass, capable of making solid judgement calls and moving the nation forward, not waiting for the political winds to change. As a politician, it is not my job to do what is popular but to do what is right, and make it popular."