Republican Congressmen Worry That Trump Is Flushing Their Reelections Down The Toilet With His Own

Fred Upton wants to be seen as a moderate rather than the Trump enabler he is

Republican senators are afraid to do it because they worry Trump will notice and tweet something horrible about them, but some House Republicans are quietly trying to edge away from Trump to save their own skins. "Quietly" has been the key word there but Katie Edmondson and Rebecca Ruiz blew the whistle with a NY Times piece yesterday. They tried making the point that moderate Republicans-- whatever the hell that's supposed to be-- in competitive districts "are navigating a careful balance in addressing the coronavirus crisis," eager to not be associated with a president whose pandemic policies are widely recognized as the causes of death and destruction in our country. One congressman not mentioned in the piece was crooked Trump enabler Roger Williams in central Texas. "Congressman Williams is an extremist who is way out of step with the reality of what most Texans believe, as well as the everyday reality for people who have to work for a living," said Julie Oliver, the popular progressive Democrat who won her primary with 70% of the vote and is taking him on in November. "His response to the pandemic has been to funnel money to his own businesses while small business owners from Johnson county to Travis county get shut out of federal relief. He's fighting for the banks and predatory lenders, not mom and pop businesses in Texas. We deserve much better.

A great California progressive, Audrey Denney, is taking on far right northern California crackpot-- Doug LaMalfa, also unmentioned in the Times piece, unmentioned because he doesn't even pretend to be even remotely moderate. LaMalfa is a far right tea party backbencher in an R+11 district where he routinely assumes the safest approach is to mimic Trump. Yesterday, Audrey told us that LaMalfa's overt Trumpism, "calling our stay-at-home orders 'ridiculous measures' and arguing that our state leadership has 'taken it too far,' is not just bad advice and bad science. It’s an affront to the selfless and protective culture of our communities, who consistently band together to protect themselves and their neighbors during crises. There’s no question that the economic hardships of these stay-at-home orders are real and put people in potentially devastating economic circumstances, but protecting the lives of our loved ones and neighbors requires difficult choices. Rather than fighting the mitigation efforts because the symptoms are painful, we need to do what we do during a wildfire: follow the advice of public safety experts, focus our community energy on saving lives, identifying and protecting the most vulnerable, and working together to restore our nation to physical and economic health."

Edmondson and Ruiz mistakenly fell for Upton's carefully crafted bullshit about how "moderate" he is. He isn't. A much better description of Upton would point out that he's a Trump enabler and bootlicker who is uncomfortable being seen that way in a swing district. Edmondson and Ruiz think it's somehow courageous for his nightly Facebook update on the pandemic don't mention Trump. They're wrong. It would be courageous for Upton to mention Trump and explain how his public undercutting of Michigan's governor are making folks in MI-06 less safe, not more safe. They are, however, correct to point out that Trump's inadequate "response to the pandemic has raised questions that threaten to drag down Republicans’ electoral prospects this fall, or of the president’s provocative news briefings, which have become a forum for partisan attacks on Democrats and dubious claims about the virus."

Upton is a cleaver and deceitful opportunist. "You have to sort of thread the needle," he told Edmondson, explaining how he's desperately trying to navigate Trump’s psychotic performance during the crisis-- afraid if he mentions it Trump-Republicans will abandon him and afraid that if he goes along, independents and moderate Republicans will join forces to oust him for state Rep. Jon Hoadley in November. "I’ve been careful. I said, 'Let’s look to the future,' versus 'Why didn’t we do this a few months ago?’ I’m not interested in pointing the finger of blame. I want to correct the issues," Upton told her. Obama won the district in 2008-- with an 8 point margin, 53-45%. Hillary was a terrible candidate for this district and Trump beat her by the same 8 points. Two years later Upton was reelected but by outspending Democrat Matt Longjohn $3,553,344 to $1,443,958 and only by 4 points. Upton lost badly in the district's biggest county, Kalamazoo, and did poorly in Berrien and Van Buren counties, basically saved by the right-wingers in Allegan, St Joseph and Cass counties.

Upton has a far more formidable challenger this cycle in Hoadley. "We need bold leadership," he told me yesterday. "Representative Upton has failed time and again to hold the Trump administration accountable, and continues to do so. The fact is that people are dying as a result of this pandemic every day. Equivocating on life-saving measures, like making testing accessible, will only lead to more lives lost. We need to act fiercely to address this crisis, yet Mr. Upton continues to support the sentiments of the protesters in Lansing by calling for Governor Whitmer to ignore expert advice on the matter. I support the medical professionals who are working tirelessly to address this issue, and the guidance they are providing to overcome this pandemic. This isn't about political games-- this is about safeguarding the health of our communities. Representative Upton is simply not acting with the urgency and tenacity that the situation requires."

It is a tricky task for lawmakers like Mr. Upton in centrist districts throughout the country, who understand that their re-election prospects-- and any hope their party might have of taking back the House of Representatives-- could rise or fall based on how they address the pandemic. Already considered a politically endangered species before the novel coronavirus began ravaging the United States, these moderates [again Edmondson fell for Upton's spin; true, he isn't a Nazi but neither is he a moderate; he's a hard core, down the line conservative ideologue] are now working to counter the risk that their electoral fates could become tied to Mr. Trump’s response at a time when the independent voters whose support they need are increasingly unhappy with his performance.

The president’s combative news conferences, which his own political advisers have counseled him to curtail, have made the challenge all the steeper.

...And calling in to a radio show in Michigan, Mr. Upton hedged when asked if he agreed with the president’s optimism about reopening the economy. “As much as the president wants to open things up-- and we all do-- I think you’re going to have to let the virus really determine where things are at the end of the day,” he said. “We know that we are not there yet.”

And yet Upton has been too scared to speak out for Gov. Whitmer when she says exactly the same thing while being vilified by heavily armed right-wing terrorists grade don by Trump. That's what Fred Upton has become even if he was once maybe not quite as bad, decades ago.

And Upton isn't the only one. The other fake moderate-- this one is a blue (D+3) district-- they decided to profile was John Katko in Syracuse, New York. Obama won the district both times, in 2008 by 14 points and in 2012 by 16 points, Even a candidate entirely unsuited for a district like this-- Hillary-- managed to beat Trump, 48.9% to 45.3% in a hold-you-nose/lesser of two evils contest.

Last cycle, progressive Democrat Dana Balter was barely supported by the DCCC and was outspent by Katko $2,998,196 to $2,687,232. The NRCC put $885,085 into defending Katko while the vehemently anti-progressive DCCC grudgingly spent a measly $84,309 on Balter. She still managed to hold him to a 5 point margin and beat him in Onondaga County, the biggest county in the district. This cycle-- with much bigger name recognition-- she's challenging him again and pointing to his lockstep backing on the unpopular Trump.

“It does make it difficult at times,” Representative John Katko, Republican of New York, said in an interview. He said he hoped his constituents would evaluate him not based on Mr. Trump’s record, but on his own.

“I’m hanging on-- not hanging on, flourishing-- in a district I should probably not have as a Republican,” said Mr. Katko, one of only two House Republicans running for re-election in a district Hillary Clinton won in 2016. Voters “are going to judge me on what I did or did not do, and that’s all I can ask.”

In an attempt to ensure their contests become referendums on their own responses to the virus, rather than the president’s, vulnerable House Republicans are instead brandishing their own independent streaks, playing up their work with Democrats, doubling down on constituent service and hosting town-hall-style events-- avoiding mention of Mr. Trump whenever possible.

It is an approach that looks familiar to former Representative Carlos Curbelo, Republican of Florida, who tried to distance himself from Mr. Trump on immigration and other issues in 2018 as he fought to hang onto his seat in a diverse South Florida district, but was swept out in a midterm debacle that handed Democrats control of the House.

“The president continues to be reckless in the context of the Covid-19 crisis,” Mr. Curbelo said in an interview. “You could see a similar dynamic where a lot of Republicans in competitive districts will just break with him in an effort to protect their own candidacies.”

Many of his former colleagues in competitive districts had hoped the severity of the crisis would give them a platform to highlight their own responses, Mr. Curbelo said. But as Mr. Trump’s nightly briefings “became more about the president and his personality” than about the disease, he added, “Republicans have perceived a peril in that development, and certainly some of the recent polling validates that.”

Moderate Republicans [their aren't any and I would love to debate Edmondson on that] are doing what they can to shift the dynamic. In virtual town-hall-style meetings conducted by telephone from his central New York district, Mr. Katko has stressed the importance of bipartisanship, saying his constituents are “sick of the nastiness” in Washington.

Mr. Katko teamed up recently with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat, for one such call, in which he broke with one of his own party’s leaders, rejecting a proposal by the top Senate Republican to allow states to go bankrupt rather than provide a federal lifeline.

“I’m going to continue to work across the aisle,” Mr. Katko told voters, pointing to his relationship with Ms. Gillibrand. “I totally disagree with what Mitch McConnell said-- that’s a great example.”

...“People are going to make a judgment here: Who do they want to give the responsibility of governing to, given what has just occurred?” said David Winston, a Republican pollster who works with the House Republican Conference. “Did you try to do the right thing? People want to know how their elected representatives are trying to solve this.”

...From his porch in St. Joseph, Mich., Mr. Upton unveiled a plan that aims to modernize the nation’s health care system to prepare for future pandemics. His nightly Facebook dispatches have drawn responses that offer a glimpse of the political balance he is struggling to strike.

“Not giving the President Trump administration any credit are you Fred,” Jerry Litke commented on a recent post that omitted any mention of Mr. Trump.

But Patricia Resetar had a complaint of her own about the same dispatch, demanding that Mr. Upton answer for the administration’s failure to deploy broad testing throughout the country.

“Where is all the testing?” she wrote. “Where is it, and why aren’t you holding this administration accountable?”

Mr. Upton said in an interview that he was “not afraid to give the president credit on a variety of issues” or to “be against him when I think he’s wrong.”

That would be never. Upton, like Katko, talks a good game but when push comes to shove, both are Trump bootlickers, pretending to be otherwise. Donald Bacon in Omaha doesn't even pretend to be moderate even though he's in a swing district that Obama won in 2008 and that Trump look by just 2 points in 2016. The progressive candidate running for the seat, Kara Eastman noted that where other Republicans are savvy enough to at least recognize the dilemma they're in, Bacon doesn't seem to even recognize Trump's failures in responding to the pandemic. "Bacon," she told me, "has doubled-down on his support for President Trump by echoing his policies and fully embracing even his most extreme ideas, while at the same time failing to support relief funding for the largest city in his own district."

Trumpist Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the eastern Washington incumbent, is going to have to face grassroots progressive Chris Armitage in November. As he said, "Cathy McMorris Rodgers votes with Trump 95% of the time; I don't even know married couples that agree that often. Cathy's greatest strength has always been her ability to quietly yet shamelessly act against the interest of American's while maintaining a low profile."

Mike Siegel, another central Texas progressive, read the Times piece and said that "It's too late for McCaul-- he’s hitched himself to Trump for better or worse. Backing the Family Separation policy when he was Homeland Security Chair; running interference on impeachment; leading the xenophobia playbook on COVID-19, and blaming the Chinese people instead of his President. Maybe McCaul wishes he could present a reasonable, independent image, but he’s already made his bed. This November, unless Trump has a surge in popularity in the moderate Houston suburbs, McCaul will be backing his bags, returning to his Austin mansion instead of Washington, DC. He will have no one but himself to blame."

McCaul can't even pretend he's anything BUT a Trump puppet

How Badly Will Their Votes Against Impeaching Trump Cost Swing District Republicans?

Fore! by Nancy Ohanian

Michael Scherer, writing for the Washington Post Wednesday, reported that "When the dust clears, the result is most likely to look more like a draw than a victory, say political strategists from both sides." He quoted Democratic pollster Geoff Garin: "I am confident that not a single Democrat anywhere in the country next year will lose their seat because they voted for impeachment." And he quoted Republican pollster Glen Bolger: "I am not convinced that anybody is in significant danger but the small number that represent the other team’s area, and there are a lot fewer than there used to be." I disagree-- with both of them.

I suppose that an argument can be made that John Katko (R-NY), Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rodney Davis (R-IL) were already among the walking dead. But the argument is, at best, a stretch if not spurious. All three swing district Republicans are putting up an intense fight to hold onto their seats, and despite voting against impeachment, each is raising huge war chests. Katko has already raised this $1,182,000 cycle. Davis has raised $1,504,629. And Upton, who is independently wealthy, has raised $962,016 and is spending as though his political life depends on it-- which it does.

Tuesday we looked at polling from their districts showing that most voters are less likely to vote from them specifically because of their impeachment votes. Change Research, which did the polling, asserted in their analysis that "if these Republicans are hoping to take on enough of Trump’s water today to make it through their GOP primary, and rely on their approval ratings on the economy to survive another general election, they should take a look at their dismal approval ratings on voters’ top priority, health care costs. Just 37% approve of Rodney Davis’ handling on health care costs, just 32% approve of John Katko’s handing, and a dismal 26% approve of Fred Upton’s handling of health care costs... It is clear that voters, even in these more conservative-leaning districts, believe that the President’s conduct is wildly inappropriate and worthy of the investigation underway. Regardless of their feelings about impeachment, majorities in these districts believe that Trump has engaged in conduct that will ultimately provide the basis for impeachment articles-- including abusing the power of his office (52%, 47% strongly), withholding military funds to pressure another country to investigate a political rival (52%), putting his personal political interests before the good of the country (51%, 47% strongly), and engaging in corruption (51%). Majorities also believe he has intimidated a witness (53%), undermined the rule of law (51%), and even committed crimes (51%). About half of voters in these GOP-held districts already support impeachment without reservation, while just three-in-ten voters oppose impeachment and think Trump did nothing wrong. This leaves over one-in-five who are still impressionable on the impeachment question. These impeachment persuadables include:

• he 14% who currently oppose impeachment because they “haven’t seen enough evidence to know if his conduct was wrong,”

•  the 6% who believe “his conduct was wrong, but it is not impeachable,”

• the 1% who think “his conduct was impeachable, but impeachment will divide the country 
and the public should vote to remove him in the next election,” and

• the 2% who are undecided on impeachment. 


Change Research emphasized that Katko, Upton and Davis "have few convincing arguments in their arsenal. The argument that 'Donald Trump’s actions are very troubling, but with an election coming next year, Congress should not overturn 63 million votes by impeaching the President now' was not convincing at all to a stunning 55% majority of voters, including 36% of Republicans. A similar argument that says 'Donald Trump may have engaged in wrongdoing, but it is not worthy of impeachment, which will divide our country and stop progress on critical issues like health care and trade deals' was not convincing at all to 52% of voters, including 30% of Republicans. Also unconvincing is an argument that 'President Trump was right to ask his lawyer to investigate corruption in Ukraine. Ukraine has had it out for Trump since the 2016 election,' which was not convincing at all to nearly half of voters. This conspiracy theory seems to have some traction, however, with the Republican base. While 83% of Democrats and 46% of independents give this a 0 on a 1-10 scale (where 0 means it is not convincing at all and 10 means it is very convincing), 47% of Republicans say it is a very convincing argument against impeachment."

Unfortunately for Katko, Upton and Davis, NY-24, MI-06 and IL-13 don't have enough Republican voters to win an election without substantial support from independents, who overwhelmingly reject their arguments for not voting to impeach. Change Research concluded that "A majority of voters in these key districts think what Trump did was wrong and, once they hear the facts, are less likely to support Members of Congress who are opposed to the impeachment inquiry. The message is clear: these representatives should put politics aside during impeachment and do their job."

So will it cost them? Yes, with one caveat. Their Democratic opponents have to make the case against them next summer and fall leading up to the election. Jon Hoadley (MI-06) and Dana Balter (NY-24) are talented political leaders. I have less faith in the DCCC's establishment hack running in IL-13.

It was no surprise that Donald J. Bacon voted against impeaching Donald J. Trump. They're couldn't be more similar and each supports the other. Omaha progressive congressional candidate Kara Eastman noted that "Majorities of people nationally and in NE-02 recognize that Trump did something very wrong and abused his power. While White House propaganda and media bothsides-ism has somewhat tempered the number of people willing to commit to impeach-and-remove, the fact is that Republicans like Don Bacon will seal their political fates with their vote against impeachment across the nation. It's about checks and balances pure and simple."

Liam O'Mara's opponent in Riverside County, Ken Calvert, is a lockstep Trump puppet and no one there, let alone in DC, was shocked when he voted against impeachment. Liam, a history professor, pointed out that "Calvert tried, on the eve of an impeachment vote, to complain that polling did not show voters in favour of impeachment-- saying the Dems had 'failed to make their case.' Not only is this false, it is irrelevant, as any popular action can, in fact, still be found illegal. I can think of quite a few. Impeachment is not a popularity contest. It is part of our system of balanced co-equal branches, meant to ensure lawless officials do not go checked. It involves weighing evidence and deciding a question of legal and constitutional principle. And if Calvert is so unfit to lead on matters of law, and must instead follow the opinion polls, he has no business being in public office."


Now... voting for impeachment may hurt a few useless, worthless Blue Dogs in the reddest of districts, Democrats who tend to vote with the GOP on just about everything. I'd guess Kendra Horn in Oklahoma City and maybe Joe Cunningham in Charlestown, South Carolina and Collin Peterson in western Minnesota. Or maybe the independents in the districts will admire them for taking a tough vote and stickling with their convictions. I suspect it will work with Cunningham and Peterson. 

But the most endangered Democrat is Maine's incredible disappointment, Jared Golden, who campaigned as a progressive and then voted as an arch-conservative all cycle. He was so pathetic on the impeachment vote-- voting for one article and opposing another-- that I think plenty of his 2018 supporters will abandon him next year. "'Standing in the middle of the road is dangerous,' Margaret Thatcher once explained, because you can get hit by cars going both directions. That’s what Golden is experiencing today. Liberals are angry. 'If my congressman, Jared Golden, votes for only one article of impeachment, I will work with all my might to see him defeated next year,' tweeted Stephen King, the best-selling mystery novelist. And Republicans... certainly aren’t placated. 'Golden’s vote to impeach President Trump proves he’d rather stand with the socialist Democrats than Maine voters,' said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Michael McAdams. Golden’s vote will not impact the outcome... But the fact that Golden stands alone says a great deal about not just impeachment but the political era we find ourselves in. Intensifying polarization and tribalism are forcing members to pick a side-- and fully own their decision one way or another-- in ways that used to be much easier to avoid."

In the Iowa U.S. Senate race, I think Admiral (Ret) Michael Franken has what it takes to make the case in regard to Joni Ernst's refusal to seriously consider impeaching Trump. "Republican senators," he told me on Wednesday, "face a Sophie’s Choice: An acquittal will only embolden Trump and cause the GOP even more trouble with suburban, female and independent voters. But if Republicans remove Trump from office, he will just run again in 2020 and take down every GOP incumbent along the way. Republican Senators have to decide whether they want their political destruction coming from outside or inside their ranks. Neither will be pretty."

Trump's Toxicity Has Wrecked The Chances For Republicans Like Rodney Davis, John Katko And Fred Upton To Be Reelected

Remember when I told you that Change Research is this cycle's polling outfit to pay attention to? I was in heaven seeing their latest-- surveys in 3 battleground congressional districts, Michigan's 6th (Fred Upton), New York's 24th (John Katko) and Illinois' 13th (Rodney Davis). All the incumbents are Republicans and all the districts are swingy and flippable. Two, MI-06 and NY-24, have solid progressive challengers, respectively Jon Hoadley and Dana Balter) and the other has a fairly worthless Cheri Bustos/DCCC careerist who stands for nothing at all and is so ashamed of the Democratic Party that she has no issues on her campaign site, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan.

Although IL-13 is now rated R+3, Obama won it convincingly in 2008 and was virtually tied in 2012. Hillary, exactly the wrong kind of candidate for a district like this, lost by 5 points to Trump in 2016. In the primaries, Bernie won resoundingly, showing what Democrats want there-- change not status quo, so of course the Democratic establishment gave them putrid example of the status quo-- Londrigan-- as their candidate. She lost. And she's back again. There are 14 counties in the district, though most of the votes come out of just 5-- Champaign, Madison, Macon, Sangamon and McLean. This table shows how Bernie, Hillary and Trump did on primary day:

• Champaign- Bernie- 20,581 (65.9%), Hillary- 10,542 (33.8%), Trump- 7,645
• Madison- Bernie- 18,723 (54.5%%), Hillary- 15,332 (44.6%), Trump- 15,588
• Macon- Bernie- 4,990 (45.2%), Hillary- 5,945 (53.8%), Trump- 6,655
• Sangamon- Bernie- 10,365 (52.6%), Hillary- 9,255 (46.9%), Trump- 11,930
• McLean- Bernie- 12,936 (62.4%%), Hillary- 7,695 (37.1%), Trump- 8,653
• Macoupin- Bernie- 3,552 (55.0%), Hillary- 2,770 (42.9%), Trump- 3,527
• Christian- Bernie- 1,526 (51.2%), Hillary- 1,395 (46.8%), Trump- 2,392
• Montgomery- Bernie- 1,266 (49.3%), Hillary- 1,241 (48.3%), Trump- 2,269
• Jersey- Bernie- 1,069 (54.5%), Hillary- 853 (43.5%), Trump- 1,902
• Piatt- Bernie- 1,016 (55.5%), Hillary- 787 (43.0%), Trump- 1,496
• De Witt- Bernie- 659 (53.3%), Hillary- 561 (45.4%), Trump- 1,577
• Greene- Bernie- 530 (49.4%), Hillary- 503 (46.9%), Trump- 1,014
• Calhoun- Bernie- 503 (50.7%), Hillary- 446 (45.0%), Trump- 329
• Bond- Bernie- 858 (53.4%), Hillary- 718 (44.7%), Trump- 1,102

Change Research explained that the goals of the 3 surveys "were to understand how closely voters were tracking Trump’s Ukraine scandal, the House Intelligence Committee hearings, what evidence and arguments for or against impeachment are most resonant, whether voters recognize the seriousness Trump’s actions, and how voters expect their member of Congress to hold Trump accountable." It's the final goal that most interests us here but I encourage you to read the whole analysis. These are the PVIs of the three districts:

• IL-13: R+3
• NY-24: D+3
• MI-06: R+4

In their intro, Change Research explains that Katko, Upton and Davis "enter 2020 with exceptionally low favorability ratings and with majorities disapproving of their handling of the impeachment inquiry and their record when it comes to holding President Trump accountable. A majority of voters in these key Republican districts think what Trump did was wrong and, once they hear the facts, are less likely to support Members of Congress who oppose the impeachment inquiry. Specifically, majorities express concern about facts established during the impeachment inquiry and believe that the primary grounds for impeachment have been established-- including believing Trump abused the power of his office, withheld military funds to pressure a foreign country to investigate a political rival, and put his personal political interests before the good of the country. The survey also found that voters will not reward Republicans for their opposition to impeachment: just 38% say they are more likely to support a member of Congress who opposes impeachment at the end of the survey, while a 54% majority says they are less likely to support an impeachment opponent after hearing arguments on both sides. The message is clear: voters in these districts believe their representatives should put politics aside during impeachment and do their job."

I. Republican incumbents are unpopular and voters believe they are not doing enough to hold Trump accountable

The vulnerability of these Republican members of Congress is reflected in their favorability ratings, which start from a net negative position in each district. John Katko is 8 points net unfavorable and Rodney Davis is 10 points net unfavorable. Fred Upton, is a remarkable 40 points net unfavorable. In particular, majorities in these swing districts-- districts where it still pays to appear independent-- disapprove of the job their congressman is doing standing up to President Trump and holding President Trump accountable. Majorities also disapprove of their congressman’s handling of the impeachment inquiry.

But if these Republicans are hoping to take on enough of Trump’s water today to make it through their GOP primary, and rely on their approval ratings on the economy to survive another general election, they should take a look at their dismal approval ratings on voters’ top priority, health care costs. Just 37% approve of Rodney Davis’ handling on health care costs, just 32% approve of John Katko’s handing, and a dismal 26% approve of Fred Upton’s handling of health care costs.

II. Voters are closely tracking the impeachment inquiry

After the House Intelligence Committee’s hearings, seven-in-ten voters have heard or seen a lot about the impeachment inquiry, and they are very concerned by what they have learned.

...It is clear that voters, even in these more conservative-leaning districts, believe that the President’s conduct is wildly inappropriate and worthy of the investigation underway. Regardless of their feelings about impeachment, majorities in these districts believe that Trump has engaged in conduct that will ultimately provide the basis for impeachment articles - including abusing the power of his office (52%, 47% strongly), withholding military funds to pressure another country to investigate a political rival (52%), putting his personal political interests before the good of the country (51%, 47% strongly), and engaging in corruption (51%). Majorities also believe he has intimidated a witness (53%), undermined the rule of law (51%), and even committed crimes (51%).

III. GOP arguments are less effective than those of impeachment supporters at moving ‘impeachment persuadables’

About half of voters in these GOP-held districts already support impeachment without reservation, while just three-in-ten voters oppose impeachment and think Trump did nothing wrong. This leaves over one-in-five who are still impressionable on the impeachment question.

... As the impeachment proceedings progress, these Republican members of Congress have few convincing arguments in their arsenal. The argument that “Donald Trump’s actions are very troubling, but with an election coming next year, Congress should not overturn 63 million votes by impeaching the President now” was ‘not convincing at all’ to a stunning 55% majority of voters, including 36% of Republicans. A similar argument that says “Donald Trump may have engaged in wrongdoing, but it is not worthy of impeachment, which will divide our country and stop progress on critical issues like health care and trade deals” was ‘not convincing at all’ to 52% of voters, including 30% of Republicans.


Also unconvincing is an argument that “President Trump was right to ask his lawyer to investigate corruption in Ukraine. Ukraine has had it out for Trump since the 2016 election,” which was ‘not convincing at all’ to nearly half of voters. This conspiracy theory seems to have some traction, however, with the Republican base. While 83% of Democrats and 46% of independents give this a 0 on a 1-10 scale (where 0 means it is not convincing at all and 10 means it is very convincing), 47% of Republicans say it is a ‘very convincing’ argument against impeachment.


 ...The good news for impeachment supporters is that their arguments for impeachment are stronger by comparison. The strongest arguments say that the evidence demonstrates that Trump’s conduct has reached an established bar for impeachment-- which is what the Judiciary Committee was attempting to demonstrate to the public in last week’s hearings.

An argument that the evidence shows “Trump abused the power of this office for personal gain, an impeachable offense in the Constitution, and in so doing undermined our national security, to the benefit of the Russians, by withholding taxpayer funded military aid to Ukraine” was a ‘very convincing’ justification for impeachment for nearly 4-in-10 voters. As convincing was an argument that the evidence establishes Trump “solicited a bribe, an offense listed in the Constitution as one worthy of impeachment, by withholding taxpayer-funded military aid and a White House visit to pressure Ukraine to give something of value to his re-election.”

A majority of these voters acknowledge that Trump has abused the power of his office, withheld military aid to pressure an ally to investigate a political rival, put his personal political interests above the good of the country, and more. Majorities find the evidence established in the investigation concerning, and majorities disapprove of the way these Republican congressmen are handling the inquiry and their approach to Trump.

...After hearing from both sides on impeachment, a majority of voters in these GOP-leaning districts are now willing to punish these GOP members for their unwillingness to participate in the impeachment inquiry, with 54% saying they are less likely to support a member of Congress that opposes the impeachment inquiry. That includes 54% of voters in IL-13, 53% of voters in MI-6, and 56% of voters in NY-24.

IV. Conclusion

A majority of voters in these key districts think what Trump did was wrong and, once they hear the facts, are less likely to support Members of Congress who are opposed to the impeachment inquiry. The message is clear: these representatives should put politics aside during impeachment and do their job.

Did Biden Cost Us A Seat In Michigan?

Joe Biden by Nancy Ohanian

Matt Longjohn was a good solid progressive candidate last year in MI-06, the southwest Michigan district that is centered on Kalamazoo and includes all or part of 6 counties: Kalamazoo (the biggest and overwhelmingly blue), Berrien, Allegan, Van Buren, St. Joseph and Cass. Upton only managed to get 50.2% of the vote, his worst showing ever. Not one poll leading up to the election showed Upton hitting 50% and the last poll, from Change Research, had Longjohn beating him 42-40%. The Change Research polling for half a dozen tight races was extremely predictive, except in MI-06.

Upton, a hereditary multimillionaire, out-spent Longjohn $3,527,274 to $1,443,894. The DCCC largely ignored the race, as they did with nearly all progressive candidates, spending just $219,564. Did the DCCC kill the chance to replace Upton with a progressive? They had a role-- but apparently not as much as Joe Biden's! According to Alexander Burns' report, Biden's Paid Speech Buoyed The GOP In Midwest Battleground, Biden, well known as a virtual gaffe machine-- worse now that he's been getting increasingly senile-- stumbled into the MI-06 race and screwed it up for Longjohn, not on purpose, of course, but because he's still an asshole.

It was just before the election in November in one of the biggest and most crucial towns in the district, Benton Harbor in swingy Berrien County. Burns wrote that Biden "took the stage at Lake Michigan College as Representative Fred Upton, a long-serving Republican from the area, faced the toughest race of his career. But Mr. Biden was not there to denounce Mr. Upton. Instead, he was collecting $200,000 from the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan to address a Republican-leaning audience, according to a speaking contract obtained by the New York Times and interviews with organizers. The group, a business-minded civic organization, is supported in part by an Upton family foundation."

Biden stunned Democrats and elated Republicans by praising Mr. Upton while the lawmaker looked on from the audience. Alluding to Mr. Upton’s support for a landmark medical-research law, Mr. Biden called him a champion in the fight against cancer-- and “one of the finest guys I’ve ever worked with.”

Mr. Biden’s remarks, coming amid a wide-ranging discourse on American politics, quickly appeared in Republican advertising. The local Democratic Party pleaded with Mr. Biden to repair what it saw as a damaging error, to no avail. On Nov. 6, Mr. Upton defeated his Democratic challenger by four and a half percentage points.

As Mr. Biden considers a bid for the presidency in 2020, the episode underscores his potential vulnerabilities in a fight for the Democratic nomination and raises questions about his judgment as a party leader. Mr. Biden has attempted to strike a balance since leaving office, presenting himself as a unifying statesman who could unseat President Trump while also working to amass a modest fortune of several million dollars.

But Mr. Biden’s appearance in Michigan plainly set his lucrative personal activities at odds with what some Democrats saw as his duty to the party, linking him with a civic group seen as tilting to the right and undermining Democrats’ effort to defeat Mr. Upton, a powerful lawmaker who in 2017 helped craft a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Ac

Eric Lester, a retired physician who chaired the Democratic Party in Berrien County, Mich., during the midterms, said he viewed Mr. Biden’s supportive remarks about Mr. Upton as a betrayal. Mr. Lester, who attended the speech, said he had confronted an aide to Mr. Biden in the hallway, telling him the former vice president had badly damaged the Democratic cause.

“It just gives Fred Upton cover and makes it possible for him to continue to pretend to be a useful, bipartisan fellow,” Mr. Lester recalled saying, adding, “I entered the hall with positive feelings about Mr. Biden and felt very frustrated.”

Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist and veteran of several presidential campaigns, said it was an open question whether voters in the party would punish candidates they see as overly friendly or cooperative with Republicans. He suggested that could be one of the defining pressures for Mr. Biden if he announces his candidacy.

“I really believe the country does not want to be at war with each other,” Mr. Trippi said. “But there is also the polarization going on, where people say: Damn it, I want to fight.”

Several people involved in planning the event said Mr. Upton, 65, had no role in arranging Mr. Biden’s appearance, and Mr. Upton said he was not involved. There is no evidence Mr. Biden was motivated to praise the lawmaker by anything other than sincere admiration, stemming from Mr. Upton’s role in crafting the 21st Century Cures Act after the death of Mr. Biden’s elder son, Beau, from cancer in 2015.

Bill Russo, a spokesman for Mr. Biden, said the research-funding legislation was the foundation of Mr. Biden’s relationship with Mr. Upton.

“It was one of the few bipartisan bills passed in an otherwise deeply divided and gridlocked Congress,” Mr. Russo said. “Vice President Biden believes to his core that you can disagree politically on a lot and still work together in good faith on issues of common cause-- like funding cancer research.”

Regarding Mr. Biden’s decision not to endorse Mr. Upton’s Democratic challenger, Matt Longjohn, Mr. Russo said the former vice president “received hundreds of requests for endorsements from all over the country and endorsed in 135 races this cycle where his impact could be greatest.”

Since leaving office, Mr. Biden has sought out opportunities to earn substantial income-- mainly through paid speeches and a multimillion-dollar book deal-- and his newfound wealth would be closely scrutinized in a presidential race. Mindful of Hillary Clinton’s stumbles in the 2016 presidential race, Mr. Biden has attempted to set guidelines for his activities that would minimize any political sensitivity, declining to give paid speeches to big banks or to accept foreign contributions to several nonprofit organizations he controls.

Mr. Biden has continued to pursue commercial activities while he is in the final stage of making a 2020 decision; he is scheduled to give a talk in Grand Prairie, Tex., a suburb of Dallas, on Thursday, as part of an extended tour promoting his 2017 book, Promise Me, Dad.

The speaking contract for Mr. Biden’s October appearance in Michigan suggests that the popular Democrat would have known he was addressing a Republican-leaning crowd. The speaking series was underwritten in part by organizations connected to Mr. Upton’s family: Among the biggest sponsors listed on the Economic Club’s website are the Whirlpool Corporation, which was co-founded by Mr. Upton’s grandfather, and the Frederick S. Upton Foundation, a family charity named for the same man.

The contract for Mr. Biden’s visit shows he was paid $200,000 for his appearance, including a $150,000 speaking fee and a $50,000 travel allowance. It also specifies that the audience would be “primarily older, conservative Republicans and local community members.” The document was disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information request made by America Rising, a Republican group that conducts research on Democratic candidates.

It is unclear whether the fees Mr. Biden received in this case are standard for all his speeches. Mr. Biden’s aides have declined to confirm what his rates are for paid appearances, including the appearance in Michigan, or how much he has earned through paid speaking since leaving office. In at least one instance, his speaking bureau, Creative Artists Agency, offered a reduced rate of $100,000, plus travel expenses, to the University of Utah.

If Mr. Biden were to have charged a similar range of fees for all his comparable speeches since leaving office, he would most likely have collected between $4 million and $5 million through speeches over the last two years.

Representatives of Lake Michigan College, which recently took over management of the Economic Club speaker series, and the Fredrick S. Upton Foundation confirmed that the Upton organization was a major sponsor of the series. Both organizations said Mr. Upton had no role in proposing or choosing the speakers. Lisa Cripps-Downey, president of the Berrien Community Foundation, a nonprofit that administers the Frederick S. Upton Foundation, confirmed that the organization had given substantial funding to the Economic Club, with an annual grant of $80,000 over the last three years-- a total close to a quarter-million dollars.

“When we see the speakers, we’re just as surprised as everybody else,” Ms. Cripps-Downey said.

Mr. Russo said Mr. Biden’s team had been aware that the Frederick S. Upton Foundation helped fund the Economic Club. He said Biden aides had vetted the funding sources for the speaking series and concluded they met his standards.

Mr. Upton, who confirmed in a statement that he attended Mr. Biden’s speech at Lake Michigan College, said he had “no idea” that Mr. Biden would refer to him at all, let alone so favorably. The two men ran into each other briefly at the venue, before Mr. Biden’s speech, and they agreed to follow up to discuss the medical-research law’s implementation, an aide to Mr. Upton said.

“Being in the audience with my family and hearing Vice President Biden reference our work together was an immense honor,” Mr. Upton said. “He was warmly received by everyone in attendance who were thrilled to have him there, including myself.”

For campus speeches, Mr. Biden refuses to let schools pay him with funds that come from the government or from extra fees charged to students-- requirements that appear to have been met in this case.

Candice Elders, a spokeswoman for Lake Michigan College, said funding for the speaking series there “comes from private sources through ticket sales, memberships, contributions, grants, sponsorships and event proceeds.” She said the grant from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation is part of a fund designed to make up any difference between expenses for the speaker series and the revenue brought in by events. Ms. Elders estimated that the Upton grant makes up about 11 percent of the series budget.

Ms. Elders said that no public money was used for the event, and that Mr. Biden addressed a group that included several hundred college and high school students while he was on campus. “Young people from area schools and nonprofit organizations are routinely invited to attend Economic Club events at no cost,” Ms. Elders said.

The greatest impact of Mr. Biden’s speech, however, was outside the lecture hall. His remarks about Mr. Upton ricocheted through Michigan’s Sixth Congressional District. Mr. Upton alluded to Mr. Biden’s praise in a debate with Mr. Longjohn the next day, and his campaign sent out a mailer stressing Mr. Upton’s bipartisan streak, including Mr. Biden’s description of him as “the reason we’re going to beat cancer.”

A business-backed Republican group, Defending Main Street, ran digital ads on Facebook showing a grinning Mr. Biden and the crucial quote-- “Fred Upton is one of the finest guys I’ve ever worked with”-- above a mock version of the former vice president’s signature.

Mr. Lester, the local Democratic chairman, said he strove to contain the damage. In an email to Mr. Biden’s staff, Mr. Lester implored the former vice president to back Mr. Longjohn: “Surely VP Biden did not intend to endorse Mr. Upton and slight the local Democratic candidate here,” he wrote.

Mr. Longjohn, the former national health officer of the YMCA, said in an interview that he had been disappointed to see Mr. Biden “clap Mr. Upton on the back in an establishment political way.” He said his campaign had reached out to Mr. Biden’s staff through an intermediary, seeking to discuss his involvement in the race.

“There was nothing but silence,” Mr. Longjohn said. “We had just requested a phone call and there was no response.”

Suggested follow-up reading: The Worst Democraps Who Want To Be President-- Part IV, Joe Biden... or these 7 posts explaining why Biden should not be the Democratic nominee in 2020. It's hard to think of a worse next president to follow Trump-- but if pressed I can. Biden would be the Democrats' Warren G. Harding... and that turned out rather badly for everyone, especially the American people.

With Paul Clements Knocked Out Of The MI-06 House Race, What's A Progressive To Do In The August 7th Primary?

Michigan's 6th district is a swing district that Obama won against McCain (53-45%) and that Trump won against Hillary (51-43%). The PVI is R+4. And the incumbent is Republican hereditary multimillionaire and Trump stooge Fred Upton. In the 2016 primary Bernie beat Hillary in the district (and got more votes in the primary than Trump did). Perhaps voters want a progressive to go up against Upton. Is that so hard to figure out? Sure, for the Democratic establishment it is. They want George Franklin, a fat cat lobbyist-- a lobbyist who has helped finance Fred Upton's campaigns for cycle after cycle-- as the candidate. Franklin has no values except money and has no place in a Democratic primary. Blue America's candidate Paul Clements was eliminated after a suspicious establishment challenge to his petitions. He had submitted well over the required number of signatures but the Bureau of Elections found him 9 valid signatures short. He took the Bureau to court, lost and had no choice but to leave the race.

He did have a choice, though, about who to urge his followers to support. As he said, his campaign has "always been about advancing economic equality and prosperity, equal rights, democracy, and environmental sustainability... It is critical that we win a Democratic majority in Congress in November, and not just a majority, but one committed to the vision and task of building governance that works for all our people. I believe that Matt Longjohn is now the candidate for Michigan’s 6th district with the clearest commitment to this vision and task and the strongest campaign to defeat the incumbent. I have only known Matt for a little over a year, but in the course of the campaign, while formally opponents, we have built a friendship based on common values. I am particularly impressed by how he has contributed to improving the health of millions of Americans through a career dedicated to strengthening our public health institutions. This experience provides a foundation for promoting, as well as universal healthcare, progressive reforms across our federal government."

I asked Paul to give us a deeper insight into why he endorsed Matt Longjohn and today he wrote this guest post:

Matt Longjohn for MI-06
by Paul Clements

When the judge decided against me and I was knocked out of the race, there was no question in my mind. I endorsed Matt Longjohn.

Campaigning for a year alongside five other candidates for the Democratic nomination, you get to know them pretty well. I count them all my friends, and each would represent the people of southwest Michigan far better than Congressman Upton has done. But Matt has the best chance to win, and he will be the best in Congress.

Matt is a true progressive. He understands that increasing economic inequality driven largely by money in politics is evidence of our democracy failing and it threatens to kill it. As chief medical officer for the YMCA Matt’s focus has been public health, such as improving management of diabetes and cancer, reducing childhood obesity, and improving gun safety. He is a strong advocate for universal, affordable health care, and with Upton having personally pushed the disastrous Republic health care bill through the House last May, this will be central to winning in November. More than this, the perspective and skills Matt has built as a leading public health advocate give him a depth that his remaining challengers lack. When Matt looks at issues such as employment, education, housing, or criminal justice, his paradigm links concern for the least advantaged with an informed commitment to smart policy. And his experience prepares him to use the powers of the office actually to achieve smart policy.

Matt understands climate change and Palestine, and the misguided priorities that our military spending represents. Martin Luther King says injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and Matt appreciates that we are caught in an “inescapable network of mutuality.” He appreciates the history of oppression of blacks and native Americans, immigrants and LGBT persons, and women, and struggle for equality that is likely to intensify under our Supreme Court. He understands that democratic equality must be grounded in equal opportunity, and this requires not only building economic foundations, such as through job training and moving people from incarceration to employment, but also correcting historic disadvantages.

The utter disaster of the Trump administration on top of years of Congressional malfunction means we need a Congress that is not only well grounded but also extraordinarily active. I believe that Matt has what it takes to be a leader in this kind of Congress.

As of the March 31 FEC report, this was the financial state of the race:

Blue America hasn't made a decision on this one yet. We're still looking at all the remaining candidates.

MI-06: One Candidate Has a 41% Favorability And One Has A 13% Favorability. Guess Which One The DCCC Backs

The ultimate establishment polling firm Democrats use for unbiased polling is Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. Last week they did a poll of the MI-06 primary to see who the likeliest candidate against Fred Upton will be. So just likely Democratic primary voters. The most progressive in the 6-person race, Paul Clemens led the field-- "braced by impressive favorability ratings, a solid regional base and superior name recognition." Their finding were pretty straight forward:

• Clements is the best known, most popular candidate. At this point in the race, Paul Clements holds at least a 27 point advantage in name recognition compared to every other Democrat running. He also posts an exceptional 4:1 positive-to-negative ratio in favorability.

• Clements holds a lead in the trial heat. Buoyed by a strong regional base in Kalamazoo (26 percent Clements), Paul Clements leads the field with 21 percent of the vote share. Only one other candidate breaks 10 percent: 12 percent Eponine Garrod, 6 percent Matt Longjohn, 5 percent Rich Eichholz, 5 percent George Franklin, 4 percent David Benac. A 48 percent plurality of are undecided.

• Sixth District Democrats are looking for change and looking to send a signal to Donald Trump. By far, voters identify “standing up to Trump” as the leading priority for a candidate for Congress this area. They are finding that candidate in Paul Clements.

Right after the polling was completed a second woman joined the list of candidates, Aida Gray from Galesburg. Tuesday night she'll be joining Clements, David Benac, Eponine Garrod, George Franklin, Matt Longjohn, and Rich Eichholz at the Greater Niles Senior Center for a candidates forum. Michigan primary day isn't until August 7th.

I asked a friend at the DCCC who the DCCC is backing in this primary. After the usual bullshit about how they don't support anyone in primaries, he admitted they have two horses in the race. Both are right-of-center establishment guys, physician Mark Longjohn, who claims they recruited him, and lobbyist George Franklin. Franklin is the bizarre candidate in the race-- he also has a bizarre $100,000 "contribution" in his war-chest that doesn't seem to have come from anywhere. Franklin is a conservative Democrat, a corrupt lobbyist, who has been helping to finance the career of the Republican incumbent, Fred Upton, who they're all running against. He doesn't make a persuasive argument that anyone should back him now. Sure the DC Dems like him, but he comes in dead last in local favorability (typical of candidates the DCCC likes).

Blue America has endorsed Paul Clements. Maybe his favorability rating is so much higher than any of his competitors is because his agenda is the clearest and most well-thought out. His opponents speak in cliches. Clements lays out actual plans. He wrote that "In southwest Michigan and across America people are working longer hours for less pay than at the end of the 20th century. This is not right. We have the strongest entrepreneurial spirit in the world, but to release its power we need to fix the things that are holding us back: a health care system that costs twice as much but delivers worse health outcomes than those in other countries; education that is failing to prepare many Americans for the 21st century; laws that reward moving American assets overseas; crumbling infrastructure; and the the largest prison population in the world-- which is incredibly costly and keeps many people from being contributing members of the community. Tax cuts will not bring more jobs and better pay to southwest Michigan, but fixing our health, education, infrastructure, and criminal justice systems will." And then he explains what he wants to do about it in Congress. I'm going to give some examples of how he wants to tackle the problems he's identified. If you like them, please consider contributing to his campaign by clicking on the Blue America thermometer on the right.

• We spend over $10,000 per person on health care in 2016, compared with Canada, which spends less than US$5,000 per person. In addition, Canada, which has a universal health care system, had longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality. With Medicare for All we can reduce paperwork administrative costs, advertising, and insurance company profits-- and move to zero co-pays for essential services, including dental, vision, and mental health services-- while covering all Americans. We can strengthen prevention and empower patients.

In Congress, I will vote for Medicare for All such as through H.R. 676, the United States National Health Care Act, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers.

I will also support legislation to lower prescription drug costs and to improve women’s access to reproductive healthcare.

• Our tax system should encourage investment in the United States, not overseas:

1- No more corporate inversions – you can’t escape American taxes by moving your headquarters overseas
2- End tax havens and tax breaks for corporations that send jobs and profits offshore.

Strengthen leadership in leading technologies for 21st-century economies

1- Promote solar, wind, and other renewable energy technologies; end subsidies for carbon pollution
2- Global warming, a growing world population, and harm to the environment mean the world could once again face chronic food shortages, but federal funding for agricultural research has fallen. In 2009 we fell behind China. Strengthen agricultural research and development so America can continue to feed the world.

• People know our infrastructure is collapsing. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives America’s infrastructure a grade of D+. This raises costs for all of us and weakens our global competitiveness.

Investment Program

We need a trillion-dollar infrastructure program paid for by ending tax loopholes for corporations. This will bring good jobs across the country that pay for themselves in higher productivity.We cannot have another crime like the Flint water crisis

Mass Transit

1- High-speed trains
2- Less time stuck in traffic and waiting at airports

• Unions brought us the 40 hour work week, the end of child labor, and paid vacations. In recent years all the gains from increased productivity have gone to owners and management – none to workers. The median wage is below where it was two decades ago, while the stock market has more than doubled. To restore fairness to workers we need stronger unions. Workers have a right to participate in decisions about the workplace, and workers’ input is needed to build American competitiveness in the 21st century global market.

• Global warming and climate change threaten human civilization. We need American leadership now to keep global warming below 2° Celsius, the target from the Paris Climate Agreement, and to help communities around the world to adapt to the effects of climate change and to care for its victims. There are also great economic opportunities from climate change, for southwest Michigan and for America, particularly in worldwide transitions to renewable energy. In Congress, I will work for American leadership in international organizations that address challenges from climate change. I will promote a rapid transition to energy that does not produce carbon pollution, to increased energy efficiency, and for American leadership in the clean energy global economy.

• In Michigan, we are blessed with many gifts of nature, particularly the Great Lakes. It is our responsibility to be good stewards of these blessings, so our children and grandchildren can enjoy them as we have. We need to consistently apply the lessons of science to maintain their ecological integrity and to minimize threats from economic activities.

Oil pipelines under the Great Lakes present an undue risk. We have seen too many burst pipelines, and the companies that own and profit from these pipelines have not been reliable in assessing their risks. In particular, it is time to close the Line 5 pipelines, built in 1953 in the Mackinac Straits, where an oil spill would have devastating consequences for people, fish and wildlife, and the economy.

• Money in politics is the main reason government is not working for the people. For democracy to succeed, politicians need to be accountable to voters-- not to big donors, or to billionaires who can fund advertising campaigns.

Candidates for certain offices should get free airtime on television and radio so voters can learn what they stand for.

We need public funding for elections. Perhaps each eligible voter could allocate $5 in public funds to the candidate of his or her choice.

Corporations are not people. I support overturning or working around Citizen’s United. Elected officials should be responsible to the voters in their districts, not to corporations.

Politicians should not be able to choose their voters. After each census, new district boundaries should be drawn by non-partisan commissions based on transparent principles, not by the party in power. I support Michigan’s Voters, not Politicians ballot initiative.

• We owe our seniors a dignified retirement. Social Security is not in crisis, but to protect it for the long term we should remove the cap on income subject to Social Security tax. This would also permit larger Social Security payments to seniors living in poverty. We must continue to increase Social Security payments in line with inflation.

• Americans are more burdened by student loan debt than ever. At $1.45 trillion, student loan debt is almost twice as high as total US credit card debt. Many graduates from my university and across the county are living with their parents; many can’t buy homes or cars or start a business; some even delay marriage due to debt.

For the 21st Century, a high school diploma is not enough. But while global competition demands a better educated workforce, funding for public colleges and universities has declined. While the Federal Reserve lends to banks at less than 2% interest, many students pay 8-9%. The federal government should not profit from student loans-- it should refinance loans at today’s low rates.

• As a Democrat, I am ashamed that my party has failed to maintain the fairness that we stand for in society. The Democratic National Committee’s bias in favor of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders before the conclusion of the primaries was unworthy of our party. Also, to restore the practice on one person—one vote, we should end the “superdelegate” system at our party conventions. Democratic Party practices should demonstrate the democratic equality we promote.

That's a sample of what Paul Clements hopes accomplish in Congress. He makes a good case for why voters in Kalamazoo, Niles, Sturgis, Benton Harbor, South Haven, Allegan and Three Rivers should vote for him. It helps explain the lopsided favorability in the new polls.

Obama won this district in 2008 (53-45%) and lost it narrowly in 2012 (50-49%), But in 2016 Trump crushed Hillary-- 51.3% to 42.9%. People in southwest Michigan wanted change, not the status quo. Bernie beat Hillary by a wide margin. Take Kalamazoo County, the biggest in the district. Not only did Bernie beat Hillary 60.6%, his 20,146 vote total was significantly moire than Trump's 8,655 total. This district is ready to come back to home to Democrats... but not with a Republican-lite status quo candidate. MI-06 is the wrong district for an establishment corporate Democrat.