Up To Bat In March-- Progressives In Texas And Illinois

The first two states with 2018 primaries are Texas-- March 6-- and Illinois-- March 20. The thing is about the Texas primaries is that they're going to, in most cases, lead to primary runoffs on May 22. So we're going to be waiting for another couple of months before we know who the candidates we have going up against Republicans for blue-trending seats in Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas, all of which are likely to deny any candidates 50% on March 6. It's a wide open race in west Houston, where award-winning cancer researcher and doctor, Jason Westin, has a bunch of establishment candidates he's competing with, as well as another progressive. He can use some help. Our candidate in Austin/San Antonio, Derrick Crowe, one of the best candidates anywhere in America, is likely to be forced into a runoff with a multimillionaire Republican, Joseph Kopser, pretending-- although not well-- to be a Democrat. Same in Dallas, where our candidate, Lillian Salerno, Obama's deputy undersecretary of rural development for the Department of Agriculture, is facing off against two pretty garden variety establishment big money careerists.

And speaking of Lillian Salerno, tough primary, it's important to remember this is a woman with cutting edge ideas up against careerist hacks whose vision basically sees themselves as seat-holders. Lillian sees sees the ability of government to shake things top-- in a good way. "We need a wholesale, comprehensive, sustainable antitrust policy," she wrote. "We need efforts to protect and preserve the marketplace in all industries across all sectors. We also need to enforce the existing laws on the books."

When it comes to animals, we protect those on the brink or likely to be on the brink of extinction. We do this because history has taught us that regulations must be enforced and immediately kick into place to protect species whose survival is threatened. Habitat is preserved, illegal activities like poaching are prosecuted, and the public rallies for the survival of the species. Just look at the American Bald Eagle: in the 1960’s there were less than 500 nesting bald eagles. Today, there are over 14,000 breeding pairs. It all started when the government banned DDT in the 1970’s. We allowed and demanded the regulators do their job and the bald eagle was saved. That’s why we need a strong antitrust policy-- to save small businesses, family farmers, and independent manufacturers-- to bring them back from the brink of extinction.

I knew first hand as a small business owner and manufacturer that I was an endangered species. After speaking to literally hundreds of rural small businesses in my role as the lead small business official at USDA, I also knew that these folks were an endangered species. You might say, "Lillian, come on, there’s hundreds of thousands of small businesses every day. There’s hundreds of thousands of small farms too." Yet, it’s all about the numbers. You can name almost any sector of the economy and there are almost grotesque concentrations of market power. Here’s a few statistics just in the Agriculture sector:

• 2 Companies control almost the entire market for milk;
• One company dominates the sale of corn and soy seeds and pesticides;
• 90 percent of all farms are classified as small. Yet, 3 percent of the farms-- the largest farms-- account for almost half of all food production.

When it comes to selling their products; Family farms, small businesses, and independent manufacturers face obstacles every step of the way to market. The massive corporate monopolists have set up an unforgiving obstacle course filled of anticompetitive contracting practices, illegal distribution schemes, and market manipulation.

What is so strange is that we all know this exists. At USDA we tried to help. We encouraged the growth of the small, local family farm. We invested in farmer’s markets and food hubs. We tried to grow the marketplace, preserve the habitat, and ward off the poachers. USDA might be seen as a friend of big agriculture, but the last eight years also saw the rise of the local food movement-- and I am proud to say that we at USDA played a small part in the movement to create more opportunities for the small farmer. But it is not enough.

We need a wholesale, comprehensive, sustainable antitrust policy. As great as the growth of the local food movement has been, it’s really like throwing sand in the wind. We need efforts to protect and preserve the marketplace in all industries across all sectors. We also need to enforce the existing laws on the books. We can’t take much more.

As a business person and as a USDA official anticompetitive contracting practices, illegal distribution schemes, and market manipulation all of these things diminish our potential and cause real hurt and real pain for Americans.

The Illinois primaries later in the month have a more crucial sense of permanence. The candidate with the most votes will face off against the Republican. The race that's gotten the most attention is in IL-03, the Chicagoland district that starts in the southwest part of the city around Bridgeport and the Stockyards, snakes down through though Marquette Manor to Midway, through Palos Hills and to Orland Park, Homer Glen and Lockport just north of Joliet. It's one of those rare races where an excruciatingly bad entrenched incumbent, Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, is being held accountable for the first time. Progressives in the district, in the state and across America have backed Marie Newman, who would make a much-needed and excellent addition to the Illinois congressional delegation.

The Republican in the race, Arthur Jones, an admitted anti-Semite is the former leader of the American Nazi Party. No, not every Republican is a Nazi... but it's funny how they always find a home with the GOP isn't it? Remember Boehner's Nazi buddy in Ohio, Rich Iott? Anyway, whoever wins the March 20 primary-- the Blue Dog Lipinski or progressive Marie Newman-- will be sworn in next January because IL-03 isn't about to elect a Nazi to Congress. The district didn't even vote for Trump. He couldn't even muster 40% against Hillary, who had been defeated in the district primary by Bernie. Polling shows an extremely tight race and it's going to be Marie's field operation that wins this one and sends the DCCC and the Democratic old guard a message that voters are watching what they do and holding the, accountable.

The only other candidate endorsed by Blue America in Illinois is Dr. David Gill in IL-13, a sprawling central Illinois district that meanders southwest from Champaign, Normal and Bloomington down through Decatur and Springfield to suburbs north and east of St. Louis. This was Bernie-country in 2016 and he beat Hillary in the district. And Gill is the candidate who has been working on Bernie issues for as long as Bernie has. He has three big-money establishment primary opponents who will probably split the establishment vote and allow Gill to face off against Davis in November. He definitely needs financial help for his field operation that will be in full swing in the next couple of weeks. Remember, the last time Gill faced off against Republican Rodney Davis, Davis won by just a handful of votes-- 136,596 to 135,309, and that was because left-wing spoiler John Hartman, took 21,319 votes, throwing the election to a crackpot conservative.

"My campaign team and I," David told us, "have worked hard to position myself to succeed in the primary on March 20. Voters here have been very excited about my message of single-payer healthcare, a $15/hour minimum wage, and tuition-free access to public higher education and trade schools

"We view the November general election as a golden opportunity to move toward real change; given my past performance against the Republican incumbent, we have no doubt that I can defeat him this year. And when I get to Washington, I intend to be a game-changer, using my background as an emergency medicine physician to counter the myths advanced by those who oppose single-payer, and to help lead the charge to the type of health care system that FDR envisioned for us 75 years ago.

"But first, of course, I have to survive on March 20. And this primary is really a battle for the soul of the Democratic party. I'm taking on establishment-backed candidates who refuse to stand up for single-payer, the Fight for 15, or tuition freedom. I'll be out-spent, but not out-worked: my staff and I, and our passionate volunteers, have knocked on thousands of doors and talked with thousands of voters. And those Democratic voters are done with half-measures, they're done with Republican Lite. They are demanding a shift toward a government focused on ordinary people, and as a lifelong progressive populist, I look forward to being a part of such a seismic shift."

This week, we want to ask you to consider helping our Texas and Illinois candidates and leave the others for another time-- just this week. Let's make sure the progressives get into the Texas runoffs and into the Illinois general election.

The Toughest House Race In Texas

The Texas primaries are less than a month away-- March 6. And the races are crowded. Or at least the seats that look the most flippable are crowded, even after lots of candidates have dropped out. Texas has 36 congressional districts. The very last one, TX-36, southeast Texas in the Houston area, is so red, that the DCCC isn't even contesting it. But two Democrats are-- Dayna Steele and Jon Powell. The PVI is R+26. Obama lost in 2008 with 30% and in 2012 with 26% and last year Trump beat Hillary 72.0% to 25.2%. Lunatic fringe Republican Steve Stockman-- the guy tangled up with the Oklahoma City bombers-- used to represent the district.

The Republican in office now is a little known, right-wing backbencher, Brian Babin, a dentist and former mayor of Woodville. Both Dems running are good but where Powell would likely do as poorly in the general election as all the other Democrats who have tried running there-- the Dems didn't have a candidate in 2016; their candidate in 2014 (the ex-Libertarian from 2012) got 22.1% and their candidate in 2012 got 26.6%)-- Dayna Steele is a respected, even beloved, local celebrity because of her long run as Houston's "Queen of Rock'n'Roll" as music director and on-air personality on KLOL, the biggest music station in the area. She's the Blue America-endorsed candidate and she's expected to win handily next month. Here's the interview a Houston Chronicle commentator did with her a couple of weeks ago:



Friday, the Chronicle endorsed award-winning cancer researcher and doctor Jason Westin in the Houston district viewed as the most flippable, TX-07. The district is on the other side of the Houston metro, west Houston and the suburbs as far as Barker Reservoir and the Houston National Gold Club. "Westin's professional credentials alone, "wrote the Chronicle editors, "are impressive enough; he says his peers elected him to lead the largest clinical trial team in the nation seeking new treatments for aggressive cancers. But don't think for a second this doctor is a one-trick-pony running on a health care platform. He's impressed crowds at community forums with his conspicuously thoughtful command of a wide variety of issues. Westin launched his candidacy with the help of a nationwide group that's trying to get more scientists to run for office. When he says he's bothered by 'disrespect of facts and science,' he speaks with a quiet passion that seems to be winning over a growing number of supporters."

And over the weekend the Chronicle's Kevin Diaz reported on the 7 Democrats hoping to get into the May 22 runoff that will determine which of them get to face Republican John Culberson in November. Hillary didn't campaign in Houston and didn't put any resources into the area but she beat Trump 48.5% to 47.1%. As of the December 31 FEC reporting deadline, 4 of the Democrats had each raised over a quarter million dollars. Together they've raised nearly 3 times what Culberson has raised. They note that the establishment fave, Alex Triantaphyllis, calls himself-- like Hillary did-- a "practical progressive," the latest way to identify yourself as a conservative and shill for the status quo without turning off the energized Democratic base. Mr. T worked for Goldman Sachs and he isn't fooling anyone.

The other establishment candidate is Lizzie Fletcher, the EMILY's List candidate and another conservative-leaning Democrat, who is being savaged by organized labor because of the vicious anti-union work her law form does. She emphasizes her support from EMILY's List, noting that "They get into races and back candidates where they think they can actually win the general election," neglecting to note that EMILY's List has been for several years the kiss of death for the campaigns they actively taken over, like hers. The candidates they run (rather than passively endorse) always lose, primarily because EMILY's List gives them bad advise, just as they're currently giving Fletcher.



The DCCC is less interested in the 2 progressives in the race, Laura Moser and Jason Westin. This quote is hard to resist:

As a doctor, Westin also believes that he is uniquely qualified to carry a potent message on access to health care, a top Democratic issue. For many Democrats that means defending Obama's Affordable Care Act from GOP repeal efforts.

But for Westin, it also means pushing for a "Medicare-for-all" single-payer national health system, a view he shares with Moser and Sanchez.

That does not mean a "radical government takeover of the medical system," he says. "As a cancer doctor, I know that health care is a right, and that denying facts is wrong."

Westin's position has won him an endorsement from 314 Action, a nationally-focused political action committee that backs candidates with backgrounds in the hard sciences, math, engineering or technology. It is sometimes referred to as the "science lobby" or an Emily's List for doctors.

Westin has received a more high profile endorsement from the Blue America PAC, founded by music producer and liberal provocateur Howie Klein, who went negative in a recent blog post calling Triantaphyllis "another DCCC talking point robot."

Westin disavows any connection to Klein's post, which some see as the first direct attack of the primary.

But he's also scored what might be the first celebrity endorsement: Mark Hamill, who plays Luke Skywalker in Star Wars (and the veteran of a Twitter war with Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz over net neutrality) recently tweeted his support for Westin with the hashtag, #MayTheFactsBeWithYou.

One more Houston race, one that isn't getting much national attention. TX-29 is a very blue district. Whomever win the primary or runoff will be the next congressmember. Hillary won the district 71.1% to 25.4%. The PVI is D+19 and the ship channel district covering East Houston/Pasadena area is over 76% Latino and one of the poorest districts in the country (412 out of 435). When conservative Gene Green finally announced his retirement, Hector Morales had already been campaigning for months. Since then 7 Democrats have jumped into the race, including conservative Tahir Javed who's may have no community support but does have a fat checkbook and is trying to buy the seat with $400,000 worth of self funding (so far). The Texas Tribune reported that state Senator Sylvia Garcia, Green's handpicked candidate to succeed him, was favored to win-- until Javed, a carpetbagger, jumped in with his open checkbook. Blue America has endorsed progressive school teacher Hector Morales. All of the candidates endorsed by Blue America can be accessed by clicking on the Texas thermometer on the right.

OK, let's move west-- to the gerrymandered Austin/San Antonio district that crazy Lamar Smith is giving up. The Blue America candidate is (emphatically) Derrick Crowe. You know how good Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal and Jamie Raskin have turned out in Congress? That's how good we expect Derrick to be too. Over the weekend the Austin American-Statesman did a rundown of the race which pits Derrick and 2 other progressives, Elliott McFadden and Mary Wilson, against conservative "ex"-Republican Joseph Kopser. There are also 18 Republicans in the race. The establishment Democrats and DC media types are, of course, attracted to Kosper's Republican-lite perspective and push him. Elliott McFadden's critique of the DCCC sound's like what grassroots Dems are saying all across the country:

“What we’re seeing is the national Democratic Party trying to dictate who our nominee is,” said McFadden, a former executive director of the Travis County Democratic Party who is CEO of Austin B-cycle, a nonprofit bike-sharing program. “They shouldn’t be bringing in national donors to influence this race. It should be up to the Democratic voters in this district to decide.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, McFadden said, “needs to butt out of this election.”

McFadden, 43, believes Kopser is emblematic of a misbegotten strategy by many party leaders.

“In partisan races, particularly federal races, people are hyperpartisan today, so, you know when Joseph says, `I’m going to go up there and be reasonable,’ well, the Republicans aren’t going to let him stand up there and do that all by himself,” McFadden said. “They are going to call him a crazy liberal that’s going to take away your guns and all these other things, so you’re not going to be able to get away with standing there and being a moderate.”

Even on its own terms, McFadden said Kopser’s strategy can’t succeed.

“There’s not enough of those voters in this district to win this district,” McFadden said. “When we look at the best the Democrats have done so far in this district (Hillary Clinton vs. Trump in 2016), that’s about a 20,000-vote margin that you still have to overcome.”

“If you can’t win with what the electorate is, you have to change the electorate,” McFadden said. “We need to close that 20,000-vote margin by drawing some of the 60,000 Hillary Clinton voters in the district that would typically not vote in a midterm election.”

“You do not win crossover voters,” said Dean Rindy, a political consultant who is volunteering for McFadden’s campaign. “There are very few truly independent voters anymore.”

...Rindy, McFadden’s consultant, said that if Kopser prevails, it will prove a Pyrrhic victory for Democrats.

“You could elect people like Kopser in 20 districts around the country, but, in the long run, you’d be hurting the party,” he said, burdening Democrats with more “nibble around the edges” members in Congress, offering “more of the same pablum,” when, he said, what the country needs and what voters, including Texas voters, desperately want is “fundamental structural reform.”

McFadden acknowledges that on the primary campaign trail, Kopser is sounding progressive themes, but said that Kopser remains a onetime Republican and admirer of President Ronald Reagan who sits on the board of the Texas Association of Business, “which bills itself as the most conservative business advocacy group in the state. They’ve endorsed Greg Abbott, Ted Cruz, Dan Patrick. They’ve opposed increasing the minimum wage, paid sick leave and in the last session opposed women getting 3-D mammograms through their insurance companies.”

If elected, McFadden said, “which Joseph are we going to get?”

But Kopser, 47, said he helped steer the Texas Association of Business to its signal opposition to last year’s legislation to restrict transgender bathroom use.

He is confident he can draw some Republican support because, “my goodness, it’s my family.”

“My family were Ronald Reagan Republicans when I was younger, and my dad now considers himself an independent,” said Kopser, who grew up in Lexington, Ky.

“These are people who have moved away from the Republican Party, but many haven’t landed comfortably in the Democratic Party,” he said. But, he said, they could support someone like himself who is “rational, full of compromise and civility, but will always be moving the ball forward and never think about going backward on the progress we made.”

Kopser wonders “why my peers in his race, why their followers, cannot offer the same open hand that they extend to an immigrant who comes from a different country to an immigrant who comes from a different ideology?”

“I love pointing out to them how I might be a Democrat today who came from the land of Republicans, but if you cannot accept me in your party, then how can you consistently say, without hypocrisy, that you are accepting immigrants from other countries?” Kopser said. “It’s the same thing. Those people left their country for a better opportunity. I left the Republican Party for a better opportunity.”

“I understand my opponents are clinging to this idea that independents and moderate Republicans will never vote for a Democrat, and I just couldn’t disagree more,” Kopser said.

In an analysis worth reading, Jack Craver made the point that "Trump’s narrower 2016 margin in Texas was most likely the result of new voters coming out for Hillary, not Republican voters deserting their nominee," as many had assumed after the election. "Indeed, Trump won Texas by a far slimmer margin than the three most recent GOP nominees despite the fact that he got more overall votes here than any presidential candidate in history."

It’s pretty simple. Trump got about what you’d expect a Republican candidate to get based on recent performances. In 2008, John McCain got 4.48 million votes. In 2012, Mitt Romney got 4.57 million, an increase of 90,000 votes. And in 2016, Trump got 4.68 million, an increase of 110,000.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton got 557,000 more votes than Obama.

Simply put, the Texans who died today were disproportionately Republican. Of those who turned 18, the great majority are Democrats.

If this trend continues, the GOP’s downfall in Texas isn’t likely, it’s assured. And without Texas, the national GOP is royally screwed.

The Lone Star State has provided the winning margin in the electoral college in the three most recent presidential contests that Republicans have won (2016, 2004, 2000). It now has 38 electoral votes, but it will likely get more in the coming years as its population continues to grow.

Just as important, the 25 GOP members of Congress from Texas are currently the difference between Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi being speaker of the House. Democrats will obviously never win all of those seats, but they will take over a fair number of them. The Republican gerrymandering will protect some GOP seats, but other Republican members of Congress will eventually find that the districts that were drawn to be solidly red for them in 2011 have since become much purpler.

He singles out Culberson's Houston seat and predicts Ted Poe's (TX-02) which wraps around the north of the city, will follow the same trajectory. "12 House Republicans from Texas," he wrote, "represent districts that are less than 50 percent white." Look for Pete Olson (South Houston, Sugarland) and Will Hurd (South Texas) to be looking for new jobs soon and for TX-27 (Corpus Christi) to swing blue as well-- followed by Pete Sessions (north Dallas), Joe Barton (Arlington), Randy Weber (Galveston/Beaumont) and Kenny Marchant (Fort Worth suburbs). If the DCCC ever learns to encourage candidates attractive to the voters in the districts instead of to donors on K Street and Wall Street, this could happen faster than anyone has predicted.

Does Net Neutrality Mean Much To You?

If more congressional candidates did this, many of the country's problems would vanish

I was listening to NPR yesterday on a long drive and they were interviewing two dullard Beltway operatives, a dumb Dem and an even dumber Republican. The dumb Dem, when asked about Net Neutrality's salience as an issue said no one cared much about it. And the dumber Republican went one further to say no one even knows what it is. These two fools and the idiots they work for may be in for a big surprise. Spectrum seems to already be slowing down website loading and is running frequent TV cable ads hawking speedier service if you pay a monthly fee. Anyone who thinks there's no salience in that as an issue is just so, so clueless.

Lisa Brown, the Democrat running for Congress in eastern Washington state, has a a net neutrality video as her pinned tweet. It's an important issue for her. She told us that her opponent, "4th- ranked Republican leader, Rep. McMorris Rodgers, actually 'applauded' the FCC for taking on the reversal of net neutrality, demonstrating how out of touch she is with the real needs of most Americans, especially the rural parts of eastern Washington. Not only will 'pay to play' internet hurt all consumers in the wallet, it will widen the digital divide, as ISPs compete by investing in big city technology upgrades and marketing, letting the rest of us languish."

John Culberson is one of the only members of Congress left in office who voted against the Martin Luther King holiday. Hopefully this will be his last year in Congress, replaced one of the best successful cancer doctores and researcher Jason Westin. Unlike Culberson, Westin is a proponent of new neutrality. " John Culberson has many flaws, but the gift of gab isn't one. The quote often attributed to Mark Twain may apply to Mr. Culberson: 'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.' On Net Neutrality, he couldn't stay silent. On March 25, 2017 Culberson held his most recent town hall. It was a raucous affair and one of the questions was about if he'd support Net Neutrality. He tried 4 times to answer, and it was clear he'd never heard of Net Neutrality. But when I reviewed his voting record, he voted AGAINST Net Neutrality on April 15, 2016 (H.R. 2666, 114th Congress). This is an excellent example of why we need new leadership-- to have representatives who actually know what they are voting on."

Senate Democrats seem to understand how much net neutrality resonates and they're trying to force McConnell to allow a vote. Cecilia Kang reported yesterday in the NY Times that even if the Democrats win in the Senate-- and they're close-- the Republican-controlled House is unlikely to go along and Trump would veto it anyway.

Senate Democrats said on Tuesday that all 49 members of their caucus had agreed to sign on to a resolution that would overturn the F.C.C. repeal of net neutrality rules. They are using a tool of the Senate, the Congressional Review Act, which requires a simple majority to overturn a recent order by a federal agency.

The Democrats also have the support of at least one Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine. So that leaves them searching for one more Republican to join their effort to get the necessary 51 votes.

...Many Democrats would like to turn net neutrality into a bigger political issue ahead of the 2018 midterms. The efforts to overturn the F.C.C. order are aimed to raise awareness about an issue that has broad interest, particularly among younger voters, Democratic lawmakers have said. Consumer advocacy groups like Free Press, Demand Progress and Fight for the Future, have been singling out lawmakers who have either supported the F.C.C. order or have not spoken up in favor of restoring rules.

“There will be a political price to pay for those on the wrong side of history. Momentum is on our side,” Mr. Markey has said.

Ryan, of course, will protect the swamp so it will take 218 signatures on a discharge petition to get around him. Mike Doyle (D-PA) introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution to reverse the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality protections and immediately got 81 co-sponsors. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) was one. "We can’t stand by," she said, "as the FCC and big corporations steal our right to equal access to the Internet. I am cosponsoring this resolution because we need to reverse the FCC’s shameful repeal of net neutrality protections. The FCC’s decision will allow Internet service providers to favor big businesses over startups, hurting New Hampshire innovators; it needs to be stopped.”

Last month, Shea-Porter sent a letter with the New Hampshire congressional delegation to New Hampshire Attorney General Gordon MacDonald and Governor Chris Sununu, urging them to take action to protect Granite State consumers and small businesses from the negative impacts of the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality protections. Shea-Porter and 118 colleagues also sent a letter asking FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to delay the scheduled net neutrality vote due to public comment irregularities.

Yesterday New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman led 22 states in a suit against the FCC over its plan to rollback net neutrality, alleging that the FCC decision violates the federal Administrative Procedure Act as well as a number of state and local laws. And it isn't just the blue states. Kentucky joined as well. Attorney General Andy Beshear: "I’m opposing the repeal of net neutrality because of the destructive nature it will have on every Kentuckian from farmers to college students who use free and open internet to thrive and prosper. As a state and as a nation, we cannot turn our backs on the hard working people of this country by letting the federal government walk all over them and take away their level playing field."

Aside from New York and Kentucky, the other states who have joined the suit are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Democrats would love to get Republicans opposing net neutrality on the record.

I reached out to Austin Frerick, a former Obama Treasury Department economist who is biding much of his Iowa congressional campaign on an analysis of corporate power and how it harms ordinary working families and how to rein it in. He told me that "Only 50% of rural Americans have Internet that meets the government standard of adequate serviced compared with 94% in urban area. The repeal of Net Neutrality will exacerbate the issue of unreliable broadband in rural areas. On March 31st last year, David Young received a $5,000 check from Comcast. I support Net Neutrality. He doesn't. This is probably why. Here's just another example of David Young putting corporate America's needs heads of everyday Iowans."

Derrick Crowe, like Frerick, is one of those forward-looking big thinker candidates-- he's running in TX-21 (super-literate and techie Austin/San Antonio)-- who understands very well how crucially important net neutrality is. Today he told us that "Net Neutrality is about stopping another massive corporate attack on our freedom. It's repeal lets huge corporations act as the gatekeepers of information, giving them enormous power to shape political debates and extort funds from subscribers. This is an issue that young voters and people about to be old enough to vote are intensely attuned to, and if our party doesn't vociferously defend true Title II Net Neutrality, we risk alienating an entire generation-- for good reason. We subsidize corporations like Verizon and Comcast to the tune of billions of dollars each year, and this move by them and their political enablers to restrict our freedoms in return is outrageous." You can contribute to their campaigns, and Jared Golden's, by clicking on the thermometer on the right.

Lewiston's Jared Golden is the majority whip of the Maine House of Representatives and is now running for the congressional seat held by Wall Street-oriented Republican Bruce Poliquin. Like Frerick and Crowe, he gets how important this issue is for Mainers-- even if his opponent doesn't. "Once again," he told us, "Bruce Poliquin is the only member of Maine’s delegation that’s failed to protect his constituents. Senators Susan Collins and Angus King and Congresswoman Pingree all support restoring Net Neutrality but Poliquin supported getting rid of it. The network companies have local monopolies in Maine and they are making their own rules while consumers have little or no alternatives to choose from. The FCC is giving these monopolies free rein over consumers and small businesses and Maine’s economy is pretty much driven by small businesses. Not only should it bring back Net Neutrality but Congress should act to break up the monopolies and ensure fair competition instead of allowing these internet providers to operate like 21st Century Barons."

Katie Hill is the committed progressive in a race to replace GOP reactionary Steve Knight in a district that has been trending blue. She told us that "Without net neutrality, news is less available, citizens are less knowledgeable, and marginalized groups are even less powerful. Our discussions and democratic deliberations are weakened when telecom companies and internet service providers get to decide who is allowed to speak, whose speech will be taken seriously, and what issues are considered debatable. The free and open exchange of information is one of our last defenses against the political influence of big businesses and special interests; the fight to #SaveNetNeutrality is not one that we can afford to lose."

Jason Westin And The Children’s Health Insurance Program

Last year Blue America looked carefully at the race in the west Houston congressional district held by Paul Ryan rubber stamp John Culberson. The district, which went from a pretty red area with a PVI of R+13 in 2015 voted 48.5% to 47.1% for Clinton (after giving Romney a 59.9-38.6% win over Obama) and now has a more manageable R+7 PVI. There's more than one good candidate running for the nomination to take on Culberson but the best candidate with the best chance of beating Culberson in the general election is award-winning cancer researcher and doctor Jason Westin. Blue America endorsed him. Today we asked him to give us his perspective on the GOP sabotage of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Technically, Paul Ryan and his rubber stamps like Culberson have allowed the funding for the crucial program-- crucial for millions of children and their families-- to expire in September. Now states-- Connecticut and Colorado were the first two-- are starting to inform families there is no more money left for treatment. A new Congressional Budget Office report shows it would be effectively cost-free to fund the program for the next decade and Ryan has still done nothing. By the end of February half the states in the country will have no more money for the program unless Congress acts.

Please take a look at Dr. Westin's guest post below. The Take Back Texas ActBlue thermometer on the right is a simple way you can contribute to Jason's grassroots campaign. You'll find him-- and other progressives-- running in Texas this year. Even $5 and $10 contributions add up and help beat back the corporate flood of money that has kept characters like Culberson in office and serving the interests of the corporations and wealthy families who have subsidized his political career for years. Jason is running a grassroots campaign. Last cycle, Culberson spent $1,193,411 to defeat a conservative oily Democrat, James Cargas, who is running again and who spent just $62,159. This cycle a very different race is shaping up and, besides Culberson, 4 Democrats have already raised over $100,000. Dr. Westin has raised $261,590 compared to Culberson's $640,744. In a wave election, challengers don't need to raise as much as the incumbent but they do need enough money to effectively get out their message. Please consider tapping on that thermometer and doing what you can.




Medicaid Work Requirement And CHIP
-by Dr. Jason Westin

Why are Mr. Trump the GOP allowing states to require a job to receive Medicaid? Because they are "all in" that healthcare is a privilege-- there is no other explanation. They are wrong. I learned in my first days in medical school that Healthcare is a human right.

Almost 20 years ago during medical school, I volunteered at and eventually helped lead the Equal Access Clinic, a student run center to give care to those who had no access. Most were hard working people who knew they were sick, but could not afford care. Those who did not work were unable due to mental or physical illness. There were no people seeing us because they were lazy or trying to "game the system." They came to us for help, because they knew if they didn't get care, eventually they'd get really sick and end up in the ER or worse. They were constantly fearful of what would happen next, and if they'd be able to support their family.

When we helped them with blood pressure or diabetes meds, they were so grateful, I can still see their smiles almost 20 years later. The medications we gave them were helpful, but the true reason for their gratitude was being seen by another human being as worthy, that someone cared. They walked around everyday knowing they were a ticking time bomb and that no one would help them-- and that takes a real toll on how you perceive your own worth. It hardens people-- it makes them withdraw. When we reached out and said "you matter to me," they could barely contain their joy.

The idea that people who need Medicaid are freeloaders is a common misconception. The majority of Medicaid recipients work but don't have healthcare benefits or earn so little that they still qualify.

For the few on Medicaid who aren't working, almost all have a valid reason. Those who don't have a reason listed are only 3%, not of the total, but of the 40% who aren't working. That's right-- we're talking about 1.2% of Medicaid recipients.

This is the target of this rule change, 1.2%. Seriously. If that's all they are targeting, why make a big deal of this? Because the consequences will be widespread. Studies show Medicaid expansion actually reduced the number of unemployed. By making it harder to get access, this will backfire and result in more people falling through the cracks. Their approach is backward, and is clearly aimed at reducing the size of Medicaid not by helping people get to work, but by deeming them ineligible.

How could this play out? An example: A 45 year old mother of three has bad asthma. She needs medication to avoid a crisis and so she can work. If she loses her job, she wouldn't qualify for Medicaid as she would be hard pressed to prove she isn't able bodied, she just had a job! Thus, she and her family would be stuck in a spiral. Too well to be "ill or disabled," but too sick to actually work. This is what "health care is a privilege" can do.

Another example of "health care is a privilege" is the debate over the Children's Health Insurance Plan, or CHIP. I'm running for Congress against the vulnerable John Culberson in TX-07. Mr. Culberson has a lot of dangerous opinions, but it surprised even me to learn that he refuses to support insurance for 9 million poor children. Does he want them to work?

It comes down to this: Does America believe healthcare is a right or a privilege? Are we ok with allowing preventable deaths and kids to go without care? I'm not. I'm running for Congress to fight back for people like my patients.

How can we do that? I believe that a single payer system like Medicare for all is the best way for us to fulfill that healthcare as a human right. The system we have now has been cobbled together with no clear organization, like building a car by designing one part at a time. It’s not a surprise that some parts just don’t work well with the others. When there is no overall strategy, you’re just making the best of a bad situation. The Affordable Care Act tried to improve some of the parts that were most in need of repairs, but it wasn’t able to guarantee coverage, and now without the individual mandate it’s weakened further still. The Gallup poll asked "do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage?" For the past three years, the majority said that it is the responsibility of the government-- and that position keeps gaining strength. In 2017, 56% said yes vs. 42% that said no. This is clear: The American people are increasingly coming to support my core belief: Healthcare is a human right, and that the only way we can fulfill this obligation is with a single payer system like Medicare for all.

These attacks by Trump and his enablers in Congress on earned benefits like Medicaid and on innocent children with CHIP show what they believe: healthcare is a privilege. Candidate Trump said he wouldn’t let people "die on the streets" if elected-- and Ted Cruz mocked him for that position. Sadly but not surprisingly, after the election Mr. Trump has seemingly moved away from this pledge. We can do better than their heartless approach, and by electing people who know these issues first hand, we will.

I’ve gotten so mad about this attack on our care that I’ve decided to do something about it. I’m running for Congress to fight back for people like my patients. I’m in a flappable district running against a Trump Rubber Stamp named John Culberson. I can actually win, and make a real difference for our healthcare system. But many have asked-- don't we need you to fight cancer? Wouldn't we be wasting your talents in DC? I can do so much more for my patients, for healthcare, in Congress than in the clinic. When I take care of a patient, they receive benefit, but it doesn't help anyone else. When I write a clinical trial, if it succeeds I can help thousands of people by developing a new treatment. In Congress, I could help millions.

Some FISA Vote Politics

Can you guess why we included this graphic on this post?

45 Republicans looked at the stinky FISA bill on Thursday and could not pull themselves to vote YES. That means that had Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn held their caucus together, it could have been defeated. Instead, it passed 256-164. How the hell did that happen? Well, start with Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn; they all voted for it. In fact 65 Democrats did-- basically the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, pretty much all the Blue Dogs and all the New Dems and their fellow travelers. 119 Democrats voted NO and 65 voted with the GOP. All the garbage Dems were over on the other side of the aisle as fast as they could get there-- Jim Himes (CT), head of the New Dems with his whole horrid caucus and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), head of the Blue Dogs with her whole horrid caucus.

All the regular Democratic bad guys you'd expect to support Paul Ryan on this... supported Paul Ryan on this. Here are just two dozen of the traitors:

• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Jim Himes (New Dems- CT)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA)
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)
• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)
• Brad Schneider (Blue Dog-IL)
• Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)

The vote is considered a victory for the Trumpanzee Regime so... thanks Pelosi and Hoyer and Clyburn... and the whole Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Remember, if a candidate is being backed by the DCCC, that's probably the wing of the party they're from. I asked a few of the progressive candidates running against Members of Congress who voted for the Trump Regime's FISA bill. Tim Canova was the first guy I went to. He told me that "Wasserman Schultz showed that once again she talks a big game in her exhortations against President Trump, but when push comes to shove, she falls right in line with some of the worst parts of his agenda. Recall when Trump fired missiles into Syria, killing several Syrians, Wasserman Schultz was quick to endorse his unauthorized use of force. She did not demand Congressional oversight and authorization. Now she has voted against the USA Rights amendment, a bipartisan effort to only somewhat rein in the National Security Agency’s electronic surveillance program. On the one hand, Wasserman Schultz loves to call Donald Trump a mad man. And then she votes to extend the NSA’s program of spying on U.S. citizens. One need not even share Wasserman Schultz’s professed view of Trump’s mental state to conclude the NSA should not have such unbridled powers to spy on American citizens without a warrant, no matter who’s in the White House. Like much of what Wasserman Schultz does or doesn’t do, the most likely explanation is that she’s simply repaying the giant defense and technology contractors that feast off the NSA establishment and continue to contribute to her campaigns, political actions committee, and SuperPACs."

The Blue America-endorsed candidate in west Houston, Jason Westin, wasn't happy that his congressman wasn't one of the several dozen Republicans willing to stand up against Trump's authoritarian nature. "John Culberson," he told us, "just voted again with Mr. Trump (or at least the version of Mr. Trump after his advisors explained to him what FISA is and that he supports it). The FISA court has zero oversight, has already shown that it has issued questionable warrants like the telephone metadata program, and operates outside of US Justice system where no one but the judge and the government know what is being examined. We live in a dangerous world, and we need strong surveillance to protect America from those who would do us harm, but the secrecy of FISA sounds like something from an authoritarian state, not a nation that believes in the rule of law."

Paul Clements in southwest Michigan had a similar reaction when Fred Upton was also too cowardly to stand up to Trump. "Good government depends on transparency and accountability. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments (FISA) Act is the opposite of this. How much do you trust government officials who can read your email messages without getting a warrant not to use this power for their own purposes? How much do you trust appointees not to use it to support the political ends of whoever appointed them, or whoever can fire them? A time when the President encourages the FBI to go after his political opponents, when the government identifies people as threats based on their religion or nationality, and when new technologies create threats to privacy that no one fully understands ... is a bad time to relax transparency and accountability. The FISA Act allows the government to collect American citizens' email and other communications with foreigners, without a warrant, from companies like Google and AT&T. It is a step towards tyranny. My opponent, Congressman Fred Upton, voted for it. I would vote against."

Earlier this week, we introduced DWT readers to J.D. Scholten, the progressive Democrat running for the northwest Iowa seat occupied by neo-fascist bigot Steve King. Today J.D., commenting on the vote, told me that "This is an expansion of FISA and not the reform that was intended. This attacks our 4th amendment rights by allowing warrantless searching of Americans' communication."


UPDATE: Why Is Rodney Davis Such A Tool For Trump?

David Gill is the progressive opponent in central Illinois to Trump/Ryan puppet Rodney Davis. This morning Doctor Gill told us that "Davis, has demonstrated the complete lack of concern he has for the rights and well-being of all the people who live here in IL-13. With his support of the extension of FISA, he makes clear that his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution is absolutely worthless. Mr. Davis supports allowing the government to continue to monitor our international phone calls and emails without a warrant, a gross violation of our Fourth Amendment privacy rights. This program should have been overhauled long ago to comply with our Constitution, or scrapped altogether if necessary; instead, career politicians like Rodney Davis continue to support it. Mr. Davis demonstrates that the most dire threat to our democracy is not from terrorists from other countries, but from 'leaders' like himself who tear it apart from the inside."

Why This West Houston District Will Turn Blue In November-- Meet Dr. Jason Westin

The west Houston congressional district (TX-07) is one of the most likely in the Lone Star State to flip from red to blue. The district, which stretches from West University Place and Belaire up through Spring Valley, Hunters Crook and Bunker Hill villages and west to Barker Reservoir and up to the Houston National Gold Club, Satsuma and Jersey Village. Traditionally red-- with a PVI of R+7-- Hillary beat Trump 48.5% to 47.1%. The DCCC has never looked at it as a winnable seat, but this cycle hapless Republican incumbent, rubber stamp John Culberson, has attracted 7 Democratic opponents, including 4 who have already raised 6-fured war chests. Blue America has endorsed award-winning cancer researcher and doctor, Jason Westin. And when I saw the new video (above) I was extremely happy that this is how so many of the Democratic and independent voters in the district will be introduced two him. This is a powerful clip. If you like it, please consider giving Jason a hand by clicking on the ActBlue thermometer on the right. I asked Jason to explain the clip in his own words:

Giving someone a diagnosis is never easy. Telling them they have cancer is hard. You know their lives will be forever changed, that nothing will ever be the same.

As a cancer doctor and award winning researcher, I know about cancer. It’s what has motivated my career up to this point, and it’s motivating my next challenge.

I’m sorry to tell you: I have bad news. We have a cancer in our country. I think we’ve all seen this diagnosis coming as our politics have broken down, but it’s time to face the facts.

There is a cancer eating away at America: ignorance, a willful ignorance. It’s affecting our politics and it can no longer be ignored. It’s a deliberate attack on science, on reason, and on facts. We have to call it out, and make a plan to fight back right away before it’s too late.

This ignorance isn’t completely new-- in fact, it’s been around for years. But it used to be on the fringes. The odd opinion from an otherwise reasonable politician, or a rant from someone who could easily be identified as a being a few cards shy of a full deck.

But now-- this ignorance is front and center. From the halls of Congress to the Oval Office, facts and science are under a direct attack. It used to be that we respected experts, that we respected scientists, that we respected facts.

But not anymore. Now, whenever a fact doesn’t fit a political agenda-- it’s “Fake News.” It’s a forbidden word-- like “evidence-based” or “science-based.” Or far too often it’s viewed as a partisan talking point.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Someone should tell this to Mr. Trump and his team, like when Kellyanne Conway said “we feel compelled to go out and clear the air and put alternative facts out there.” Fighting back against this nonsense, Chuck Todd told Ms. Conway that “alternative facts aren't facts, they are falsehoods." Falsehoods, untruths, misrepresentations, fibs, or as well like to call them, flat out lies-- whatever you want to call them, they are dangerous and we must be clear: our society must not tolerate this willful ignorance.

From climate change, to evolution, to vaccines, even to the size of the crowd at the inauguration-- this administration, and its enablers and rubber stamps in Congress, has shown a deliberate pattern of attacking facts, attacking reason, and attacking science.

We could almost ignore it if the consequences weren’t so severe. If the people denying the existence of climate change were the local loudmouth contrarian, we’d just say “let’s agree to disagree” and we’d move on. But when the President of the United States, or the head of the EPA, or the Speaker of the House deny obvious and provable facts-- the implications are enormous and have real and lasting impact.

When the United States withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, as the only major nation in the world to do so, we allow others to be the leaders to recruit the best and brightest for a new generation. We stood alone for ignorance. When we specifically prohibit any research on ways we could reduce the number of Americans killed each year by guns, we essentially give up-- we say that we are OK with 30,000 American not coming home to their families. When candidate Trump claimed that vaccines cause autism, despite overwhelming evidence that they don’t, he told busy and nervous parents that it’s ok to skip those shots their kids hate, and preventable disease and death will inevitably follow.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The first step of treating a problem is a proper diagnosis, but after we’ve made a diagnosis, the next step is to develop the best possible treatment plan. My plan: fight back, hard.

We can do better. Because the history of America is the history of scientific achievement. From Ben Franklin and the kite, to Thomas Edison, to Amelia Earhart, to George Washington Carver, to the Manhattan Project, to the Apollo Mission, to Microsoft and Apple and Google and Facebook and Tesla, America is the global leader, and it’s not even close. As President Kennedy said “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Amen.

As a cancer doctor, I know first-hand that we’ve made incredible progress-- that there are 15.5 million cancer survivors alive in the United States today. I’ve seen my patients who were on their way to the grave be cured with the latest breakthroughs. We’ve achieved this with science, with facts, with a drive to do better. We know that the making of a more perfect union is the triumph of reason over ignorance, of light over darkness.

I believe in science, I believe in facts, and I believe the impossible is possible because I’ve seen it, day in and day out in more work.

For us to succeed, to continue our march towards progress, we must elect more leaders who understand the power of science, who respect essential nature of facts, and who will govern based upon logic and reason, based upon facts-- not partisan fictions.

We know there’s a way, now we just need the will.

To succeed, we need your help. Watch our video, tell your friends, support us any way you can, and keep fighting. Together, we will win.

-by Jason Westin
Candidate, TX-07

Kiss Of Death Politics

Part of Señor Trumpanzee's absurd-- but effective-- pitch during his election campaign was about how he would be a champion for "the forgotten men and women of America." Instead he's been a champion for corporate executives, the Wall Street banksters and the wealthiest and greediest among us. And, slowly but surely, the forgotten men and women of America have begun to catch on. Among Trump's base, his one legislative accomplishment, the Tax Scam, isn't polling all that well. Only 28% of rural Americans back it and only 29% of non-college whites like it. Even among actual Trump votes, just 57% are taken in by the scam. 63% of voters say the Tax Scam was designed mostly to benefit corporations and the wealthy, compared with 22% who say it was designed to help all Americans equally.

More voters now say they trust Democrats rather than Republicans to handle the economy. Worse yet for Republicans is the new SSRS poll for CNN showing that the advantage Democrats have over Republicans in a hypothetical Congressional matchup is continuing to grow, an indication that the building 2018 midterm wave is becoming tsunami.

Among registered voters, 56% say they favor a Democrat in their congressional district, while 38% prefer a Republican. That 18-point edge is the widest Democrats have held in CNN polling on the 2018 contests, and the largest at this point in midterm election cycles dating back two decades. The finding follows several other public polls showing large double-digit leads for Democrats on similar questions.

Only Beltway goofballs like Cook are cautiously predicting Democrats will net the 24 votes needed for a House takeover. Less conservative prognosticators more in touch with electoral reality see the GOP being absolutely crushed next year, with the House Democrats winning not 2 dozen red seats but 4 or 5 dozen! Independents are largely through with the GOP, bad news for every Republican outside of the Old Confederacy. Nationally, independent voters now favor Democrats over Republicans "by a 16-point margin, 51% to 35%, similar to the 50% to 36% margin by which they favored Democrats in fall of 2005, ahead of Democrats' 2006 recapturing of the House and Senate. The Democrats hold a larger lead overall now because Republicans make up a smaller share of the electorate than they did in 2005. And those Republicans who are still in the electorate are less enthusiastic about voting next year than Democrats."

On Thursday, Politico referred to Trumpanzee, Ryan and McConnell "as anchors on Republicans’ poll numbers." Their own poll, by Morning Consult, shows the generic congressional ballot advantage for Democrats 44-34%. and with Trump's already dismal favorability ratings continuing to crater. "Democrats’ 10-point lead on the generic ballot," they note, "is their largest for the year. The party has a 15-point lead among female voters, the poll shows, and a 3-point edge among male voters. White voters are split-- 39 percent for Democrats and 38 percent for Republicans-- but Democrats have a 59-point lead among African-American voters and a 27-point lead among Hispanics."

The double digit leads all polls have begun showing, including by Republican firms, is enough to overcome gerrymandering in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and perhaps even Ohio. Polls are also predicting high turnouts instead of the low turnouts normal for midterm elections.

Laura Oatman is the progressive candidate running for the Orange County coastal seat occupied by Putin asset Dana Rohrabacher. Yesterday she told us that "This is the pattern; Trump, full of promises and gaudy baubles promising the world, be it a hotel, a golf course, or a wall. And like so many others before them, the businessmen, the bankers-- Americans have learned that Trump cannot be trusted.  That their hope for something different-- which is understandable-- was misplaced.  Regardless, I won’t need Trump’s kisses to Dana, nor Putin’s bot factories behind Dana’s pages, to energize the voters of CA-48 and bring positive change to this district."

Sam Jammal, the progressive candidate running for the northeast Orange County seat occupied by Trump rubber-stamp Ed Royce is already clobbering Royce with his willingness to put Trump's whims ahead of his own constituents' needs. "Voters in our community," he reminded us, "resoundingly rejected Donald Trump last year and polls show they reject him today in even larger margins. It amazes me that Ed Royce is willing to fight for Trump's priorities instead of his own constituents. There won't be a day where we don't tie Ed to the Trump agenda. He is a 97% vote for Trump in a district that went for Hillary by nearly 9%. Our community won't stand for this, especially now that Trump took away net neutrality and Royce voted for a tax reform bill that undermines homeowners, seniors and young people in our district just so his donors could get a tax cut."

And this is a position of Democratic congressional candidates not just in blue California, but even in red Texas. Rick Treviño is the progressive candidate taking on Will Hurd in South Texas. "For months now," he said, "Will Hurd has been doing his best to distance himself from Trump. I'm sorry buddy, that stink don't come off. I can smell that vote from here. The GOP and Hurd enabled Trump and they must atone for the damage they've unleashed on our society." Jason Westin is running in a west Houston seat that's ready to flip. "Here in the Texas 7th district," he told us, "Donald Trump was the first Republican to lose in decades, so we'd love to invite him to campaign with John Culberson. Our district voted for Mitt Romney by more than 20% over President Obama, but things changed with Mr. Trump and his circus tricks. Our district is highly educated and the 'distract and divide' strategy Mr. Trump used fell flat, and that was before we saw his performance as President. The PPP polling done recently showed in TX-07 that Mr. Trump had a 37% approval rating, but amazingly John Culberson was only at 31%. I'm not sure how anyone could be less popular than Mr. Trump, but John Culberson has found a way. John Culberson has the second highest 'Trump Score' rating in the House per FiveThirtyEight, so he's clearly trying to get Mr. Trump's support. That sounds wonderful to us."

We've been talking for months about the Trump "kiss of death." Analysis of polls is now confirming this. "Trump is the most polarizing national politician. Just under a third of voters, 32 percent, say an endorsement from Trump would make them more likely to support a congressional candidate. But more voters, 38 percent, say a Trump endorsement would make them less likely to vote for that candidate. There’s also an enthusiasm gap: The percentage of voters who say a Trump endorsement would make them much less likely to vote for that candidate, 32 percent, is equal to the combined percentage who say Trump’s endorsement would make them much or somewhat more likely to support that person." Democratic candidates are mocking Trump on Twitter and Facebook, begging him to come to their districts to campaign for the Republican incumbents who are viewed as Trump and Ryan rubber-stamps.

The two least popular figures, according to the poll, loom large on the Senate battlefield: former White House adviser Stephen Bannon and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Only 17 percent of voters say a Bannon endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, while 39 percent say his backing would make them less likely to support the candidate.

McConnell’s numbers aren’t much better: Just 18 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate he endorsed, while twice as many, 36 percent, would be less likely.

The Bannon-vs.-McConnell proxy battles are most likely to play out in GOP Senate primaries, but the Politico/Morning Consult poll is inconclusive on which man is more valuable nationally to a Republican audience. Three in 10 GOP voters say a McConnell endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, but 23 percent say it would make them less likely. The numbers are similar for Bannon, the controversial Breitbart executive: 29 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by him, while 25 percent would be less likely.

Endorsements from most major political figures could hurt candidates more that they help them.

Democrats, meanwhile, hope to turn House Speaker Paul Ryan into a bogeyman for GOP congressional candidates. Ryan (R-Wis.) is a stronger surrogate than McConnell, but the percentage of voters who say his support would make them less likely to vote for a candidate (36 percent) is still greater than those it would make more likely (25 percent).