These Are The Democratic Candidates Being Attacked Hardest By The GOP's Vicious Cookie-Cutter Ads-- Progressives, Though, Are Not Being Defended By The DCCC

In 2016 a shady right-wing SuperPAC, Future 45, spent $24,970,330 smearing Hillary and Bernie. Where did all that sewer money come from? The Adelson's laundered $20,000,000 from their worldwide gambling and prostitution businesses into it, the Ricketts family put in a million and World Wrestling Federation executive Linda McMahon threw in another $1,250,000 (and was rewarded by Trump who made her Administrator of the Small Business Administration). Several fossil fuels polluters, like Joe Craft of Alliance Coal and Jay Bergman of Petco Petroleum and some Wall Street crooks like Paul Singer and Ken Griffin and the Linder family (American Financial Group) also made 6-figure contributions. This cycle they've been quiet... until Tuesday when they released the hysterical-- and somewhat insane-- ad above, using Bernie, Alexandria Ocasio, Maxine Waters, Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren as their bêtes noires. So far the Ricketts family has dumped $4 million into airing the ad on TV, attacking, attacking, attacking... no issues, just fear and twisted Pavlovian messaging.

The Ricketts family-- which made its billion dollar fortune through TD Ameritrade and owns the Chicago Cubs-- has deployed its TV ad to work hand-in-hand with Ryan's new "Liberal Mob" radio ad. Here's the one they're running in the Houston media market against Lizzie Fletcher:



The radio ad is running against about a dozen Democratic candidates so far, reinforced by Hate Talk radio hosts like Limbaugh and Fox "News." So far dozens of Democrats have been attacked by Ryan's SuperPAC but the ones who have been pummeled with over a million each are these:

• Colin Allred (TX-32)
• Cindy Axne (IA-03)
• Anthony Brindisi (NY-22)
• Randy Bryce (WI-01)
• Sean Casten (IL-06)
• Gil Cisneros (CA-39)
• Linda Coleman (NC-02)
• Jason Crow (CO-06)
• Sharice Davids (KS-03)
• Paul Davis (KS-02)
• Antonio Delgado (NY-19)
• Kara Eastman (NE-02)
• Jared Golden (ME-02)
• Josh Harder (CA-10)
• Katie Hill (CA-25)
• Brendan Kelly (IL-12)
• Andy Kim (NJ-03)
• Conor Lamb (PA-17)
• Susie Lee (NV-03)
• Tom Malinowski (NJ-07)
• Amy McGrath (KY-06)
• Dean Phillips (MN-03)
• Katie Porter (CA-45)
• Aftab Pureval (OH-01)
• Joe Radinovich (MN-08)
• Harley Rouda (CA-48)
• Kim Schrier (WA-08)
• Abigail Spanberger (VA-07)
• Scott Wallace (PA-01)

The DCCC is defending and counter-attacking... at least to protect their Blue Dog and New Dem candidates. When it comes to progressives, Randy Bryce in Wisconsin and Kara Eastman in Nebraska... they're on their own. That's right, the only progressive the DCCC is stepping in for-- and in this case just minimally-- is Jared Golden in Maine. They refuse to do anything to defend Randy and they refuse to do anything to defend Kara. Pelosi's Evil Empire strikes! (Please consider helping Randy and Kara counterattack by clicking on the thermometer on the right and contributing what you can to their campaigns. The DCCC won't help; Pelosi won't help; it's up to us.)

But speaking of Pelosi and her evil empire, Amy Walter had an interesting piece up today at Cook, A Referendum on Trump or Pelosi? Short version spoiler: they both stink. But...for what it's worth-- Trump stinks more, much more. Will independents notice and go into the voting booth with that in mind? For the sake of America, we'd better hope so.

[W]ith just under three weeks left until the election, there is no distinction between the Trump brand and the GOP brand. The GOP brand is Trump. Plus, it’s Republicans, not Democrats, who have made a national political figure the centerpiece of their 2018 strategy. Nancy Pelosi is getting more air time in GOP ads than Trump is getting in ads run by Democrats.

Since the beginning of September until mid-October, Republicans in House and Senate races have run 61,741 ads that mention House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Many of these ads are running in affluent suburban districts where Trump is deeply unpopular, but where Republicans hope that a ‘liberal’ take-over of Washington will be even more unappealing. Voters in places like Orange County and suburban Dallas say GOP strategists, are low-tax, less-government conservatives who may not like Trump’s style of politics, but dislike government over-reach even more.

In fact, the "tax and spend liberal" playbook is getting more use than immigration; an issue that many thought would be the ‘go-to’ for Republicans looking to label their Democratic opponents as out of step with the district. Over the last six weeks, Republicans have run fewer ads on the issue of immigration (47,001) than on Pelosi (61,741).

Meanwhile, Democrats have run a little over half as many ads that mention President Trump (39,737) than Republicans have run against Pelosi. But, in a sign of just how polarized the country and the 2018 Senate map is, Republicans have run almost as many pro-Trump ads (32,643), as Democrats have run anti-Trump ones.

In fact, of the 134,021 ads run between September 1 and October 15 that mention Trump and/or Pelosi, 70 percent were run by Republicans. So much for all politics is local.

Democrats, as I’ve written previously, continue to emphasize healthcare in their campaign advertising. Between September 1 and October 15, Democrats ran 266,321 ads on healthcare-- that’s almost six times as many ads they ran on Trump. So why are Democrats running healthcare ads like these that criticize Republicans for their support of legislation that would no longer mandate that insurance covers pre-existing conditions, instead of slow-mo images of Trump rally footage or screen grabs of his tweets? To win control of the House, Democrats need to win in districts where Trump isn’t totally toxic. And, of course, to win seats in the Senate, Democrats need to win in places where Trump is popular.

There is also some political PTSD going on with Democrats. In 2016, they believed that Trump’s biggest liability was his personality and style. The Clinton campaign led with a message that emphasized her stability and his lack of judgment and decency. That didn’t work out so well. This year, they are leading with bread and butter issues and leaving the debate over Trump’s tweets to the cable TV panels.

The conventional wisdom from earlier in the year-- that it would be impossible to try and morph or link the unconventional president to more conventional GOP incumbents-- still holds. But, Democrats don’t need to make the race just about Trump when the signature issues of the GOP-controlled Congress, the (failed) repeal and replace Obamacare legislation and the successful tax cut bill, are also unpopular.

And, it’s clear that the healthcare issue is taking a toll. Republicans have run 96,396 ads on healthcare over the last six weeks. Unlike in years past when Republicans were on offense against Obamacare, this year, they are playing defense by trying to change the topic. Republicans aren’t defending their vote on repealing Obamacare, but instead charge Democrats with planning to raise taxes by trillions to support a government-run health care program. Or they are defending themselves against charges that they support the gutting of pre-existing condition protection.

This election-- like every midterm before it-- is a referendum on the president. Democrats don’t need to remind their voters of this-- their voters have been ready to rebuke Trump since early 2017. Republicans, however, are taking a different tact on dealing with a polarizing president of their own party than previous candidates did under similar circumstances. They aren’t trying to show their independence from Trump-- as many Democrats unsuccessfully did with an unpopular Obama in 2010 or Republicans did with an unpopular Bush in 2006. Instead, Republicans are trying to win back their formerly committed GOP voters by stressing the loyalty their Democratic opponent shows to Pelosi.

Ultimately, fear of the future unknown is tougher to sell than fear of the present. Which makes the Pelosi-fear-factor ads a tough sell. I still think that Trump’s approval rating in a GOP-held district is a better gauge of whether it is vulnerable, than Pelosi’s image in that district. And, instead of weakening Pelosi, these ads may actually embolden her bid for Speaker. If Democrats win the House, Pelosi will be able to crow to her members-- even those who said they’d vote against her-- that she was the topic of more ads than Trump-- and still won.

Kara doesn't seem that concerned that the DCCC won't be running their negative ads against Don Bacon in the Omaha media market. She doesn't want non-issue-oriented ads in the district, regardless of which party runs them. "The ads CLF are running for my opponent," she told us today, "embody everything that is wrong with politics today. These ads are designed to scare people, to divide people, and to discourage people from getting involved in politics. Nebraskans deserve better, which is why I am committed to running my campaign with integrity and will continue to put people first."

The Toxicity Of Donald Trump: One Of The GOP's Biggest Contributors Is Now Giving To Democrats

Joe Ricketts' Ending Spending Fund was founded to help candidates with the primitive idea that federal budgets need to be "balanced," basically so that government could not engage in doing any good for citizens or for society at large. Spending creates national wealth, something conservative nincompoops like the Ricketts family refuses to understand. His PAC spent $804,319 attacking Bernie Sanders as well as millions in ads supporting reactionary losers Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Joe Heck (R-NV), Josh Mandel (R-OH), Richard Moudock (R-IN), Art Robinson (R-OR)-- the Mercer urine guru-- and Terri Lynn (R-MI). Their biggest expenditure was in 2012 when they spent about $10 million opposing Obama and supporting Romney. One of their big donors was Seth Klarman, who put $850,000 into the PAC.

That wasn't even Klarman's biggest contribution to right wing politics. He put $3,750,000 into the GOP SuperPAC, American Unity, which supported a long list of Republican losers like Judy Biggert (IL), Andrew Roraback (CT) Linda McMahon (CT), Nan Hayworth (NY), Richard Tisei (MA), Monica Wehby (OR), and Dan Innis (NH). They spent large sums attacking Zephyr Teachout (NY), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Bill Foster (IL), and Raul Ruiz (CA). Klarman spent another $500,000 on the Marco Rubio SuperPAC, Conservative Solutions, and hundreds of thousands more on right wing candidates, state committees and PACs. Like Paul Ryan, over and over and over. (So he didn't know?)

When he gave to Democrats, it was generally conservative Democrats like Joe Lieberman (CT), Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA), Doug Jones (AL), Stephanie Murphy, (Blue Dog-FL) Mark Warner (VA) and Steve Israel (Blue Dog-NY), as well as, more recently, to the DCCC itself.

Yesterday, Annie Lindskey, reporting for the Boston Globe wrote that Klarman is disappointed with the GOP and has switched his giving to the Democrats.

Boston hedge fund billionaire Seth Klarman lavished more than $7 million on Republican candidates and political committees during the Obama administration, using his fortune to help underwrite a GOP takeover of the federal government.

But the rise of Donald Trump shocked and dismayed Klarman, as did the timid response from the Republican-controlled House and Senate, which have acquiesced rather than challenge the president’s erratic and divisive ways. So, in an astonishing flip, Klarman, at one point New England’s most generous donor to Republicans, is taking his money elsewhere: He’s heaping cash on Democrats.

He’s given roughly $222,000 since the 2016 election to 78 Democrats running for Congress, according to federal election data from 2017 and a preview of Klarman’s first-quarter donations provided to the Globe by a person familiar with his giving.

“The Republicans in Congress have failed to hold the president accountable and have abandoned their historic beliefs and values,” Klarman said in a prepared statement to the Globe, opening up for the first time about the reasons behind his change in political giving. “For the good of the country, the Democrats must take back one or both houses of Congress.”

Klarman said he’s financing his new political donations using his share of the $1.5 trillion tax cut Trump signed into law late last year.

“I received a tax cut I neither need nor want,” said Klarman, who Forbes estimates is worth $1.5 billion. “I’m choosing to invest it to fight the administration’s flawed policies and to elect Democrats to the Senate and House of Representatives.”

His money has been spread out to Democrats running for 56 House seats and 22 Senate contests, including checks to Chuck Schumer, the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate, and Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Klarman plans to continue writing checks, according to the person familiar with his giving.

Klarman has also donated nearly $2 million to a host of nonprofits pushing issues like gun control, protecting the environment, and bolstering the rule of law, according to the person briefed on his giving-- all areas that Democrats say are under attack in the Trump era.

Many traditional Republican donors have privately expressed concern over Trump and the direction he’s taking the country, yet they’ve largely decided to keep their views quiet and their giving patterns unchanged. Some want to work with the administration on some pet issues, or they fear antagonizing the president. But as Trump has become increasingly isolated and unpredictable-- even musing about overhauling the Justice Department last week to limit the criminal investigation into possible Russian meddling in the 2016 election-- chatter about defection is growing.

“These guys, a lot of them, are fiscal conservatives, and the only thing they see coming out of Trump is the daily crazy tweets,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida Republican who does not support Trump. “The contempt for him is profound among the donor community.”

It will be hard to know if Klarman, in his dramatic shift, is an outlier or part of a larger trend until more federal campaign contribution data become public in coming months.

He started his larger shift in giving early in 2017, giving to support Democrat Jon Ossoff, who ran unsuccessfully in a June special election to fill a vacant House seat in Georgia. He also backed Doug Jones, the Democrat who won a special Senate election in Alabama after his Republican opponent was accused of assault by multiple women.

He also sent about $34,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is aimed at electing a majority of Democrats to the House of Representatives. For context, in 2016, Klarman gave nearly $200,000 to the Republican National Campaign Committee, which is geared toward electing Republicans, and none to the comparable Democratic committees.

His philosophy, as gleaned from his recent letters to investors, is more focused on finding ways to check Trump than a wholesale embrace of the Democratic Party.

“Democracies are fragile and cannot be taken for granted,” Klarman wrote to investors in the January 2017 letter. “Democratic norms are crucial for the perpetuation of democracy. Political stability depends on the rule of law and adherence to precedent.”

He kept up the drumbeat this year. “Governing is not a joke or a farce, and it is certainly not a reality show,” Klarman wrote in his more recent letter wrapping up 2017, portions of which were obtained by the Globe and haven’t been previously reported. “Tragically, Donald Trump has displayed few of the character traits required in a US president, and no aptitude for or interest in developing them.”

He is particularly concerned about Trump’s attack on institutions that are fundaments of democracy, like a free press, an independent judiciary, the legitimacy of elections, and the importance of honesty.

...“Many say reflexively that America and its institutions are strong, so strong that they will survive a Trump presidency. And they probably will,” Klarman wrote in his 2017 year-end letter. “But democracy must never be taken for granted.”