Republican Triage Hits Nevada

Two weeks ago we took a quick peak at how the NRCC had begun the triage process. I completely forgot serial loser Danny Tarkanian. Tarkanaian started running for office in 2004, when he ran for state Senate. He lost. Two years later he ran for Secretary of State. He lost. Then it was U.S. Senate in 2010, He lost. He ran for Congress in 2012 (and again in 2016). He lost both times. He ran for the state Education System in 2014. He lost. This year he decided to challenge Republican incumbent Dean Heller for the GOP Senate nomination. But, when polling showed him losing-- and when Trump told him not to run against Heller-- he pulled out and decided to run for the open congressional seat in NV-03. The last time he ran in the 3rd, this is what happened:

• Jacky Rosen- 146,869 (47.23%)
• Danny Tarkanian- 142,926 (45.96%)

On that same day Trump beat Hillary in that district by a full point.



His opponent in the R+2 district is New Dem and socialite Susie Lee, a really heinous, dreadful candidate, though perhaps not as heinous and dreadful as Tarkanian. As of June 30 she had raised $2,129,227 to his $1,186,612. They both won their June 12 primaries convincingly, Lee with 25,475 votes (66.9%) and Tarkanian with 15,257 votes (44.1%). 38,073 Democrats voted in the primary-- primarily because Trump had endorsed him-- but just 34,572 Republicans showed up. And that brings us to Jon Ralston's report that the NRCC had decided, despite Trump's backing to Tarkanian-- to toss him overboard. Aware they're going to lose their House majority, the NRCC wants to preserve their resources for candidates who can win. In their view, that doesn't include Tarkanian. They're putting their Nevada resources behind Cresent Hardy in his NV-04 race instead. In that re-run of the 2012 election, former Congressman Steve Horsford has raised $682,449 and former Congressman Cresent Hardy has raised $415,967. Unions have already spent $695,078 supporting Horsford and the NRCC is well aware they're going to have to drop millions of dollars into the district and feel they can't spend it in both the 3rd and the 4th.

Ralston found the decision to drop Tarkanian and stick with Hardy odd, "considering the difference in district demographics: In CD-04, where Hardy is trying to reclaim his old seat from the man he defeated four years ago, Steven Horsford, Democrats have a 9 percentage-point lead. In CD-03, where Tarkanian is taking on Democrat Susie Lee, Democrats have only a 2 percentage-point edge."

What this decision means practically is that whatever ad reservations and money already has been laid down in the market by the NRCC will not be split between the two districts but funnelled into the CD-04 race-- and all future investment will be to help Hardy.

Of course, if polling warrants, this decision is not irrevocable. But this withdrawal of support is a devastating blow to Tarkanian, who already is in a huge financial hole to Lee and needs outside help to be competitive monetarily and on the airwaves.

I’m told the NRCC has polling that shows both races close and thus could have made sound arguments for investing solely in either one. But this decision is a clear sign that the NRCC believes in Hardy and also has data that indicates:

1. Tarkanian, who has never won a race, is…Tarkanian; and 2. Horsford has identifiable vulnerabilities, some of which were exploited when Hardy beat him in 2014 in one of the biggest upsets in Nevada annals.

This will become evident in mid-September when the airwave ad glut takes hold here and elsewhere. House GOP strategists are optimistic that control could come down to a handful of seats, and Nevada is one of the few places they can play offense instead of defense (two open Democratic seats) so naturally they want to focus all of their energies and resources on one race so as to not dilute their efforts.

Clearly the NRCC wasn't just looking at the odds. 2 in 7 (27.4%) is pretty piss poor odds to gamble on:

But 1 in 7 (15.2%  is far worse:

In the other big Nevada races, a new Suffolk poll shows Democrat Steve Sisolak with a 2 point lead over Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt in the governor's race, and conservative Democrat Jacky Rosen leading incumbent Dean Heller (R) by less than a percentage point in the Senate race. Trump's statewide approval/disapproval rating is 46/50%.

Lots Of Tragedy To Go Around-- Due Process Could Be Very Helpful

In his delineation of the tragedy of Ruben Kihuen, Jon Ralston wrote Monday that it was Reid who elevated "someone with so many known ticking time bombs in his past." Ralston expressed sympathy, not with the Democratic Party establishment or even Kihuen but with so many people who "had reposed faith in and who so many must now re-evaluate. His announcement that he will not run for re-election, as inevitable as August triple-digit temperatures in Las Vegas, is unalterably sad for so many young people, especially Hispanics, who believed in the first DREAMer in Congress... [They] saw Kihuen as a symbol of hope in a Trumpian world where their futures are uncertain. And it wasn’t just DREAMers-- Kihuen has been a heroic figure to many younger Hispanics and others, too, people who saw him as the embodiment of the American Dream. Imagine their nightmare now.

I find some of the rationalizations I have heard whispered-- he was single, women threw themselves at him, the women never said anything, back then-- to be grotesque. I understand denial by those close to him, perhaps. But everyone else needs to open their eyes and see Kihuen for what he is: A playboy-as-predator who has exploited many professional situations with women and caused them to feel he cared only about sleeping with them. He was relentless in his pursuit, not taking “no” for an answer and either not considering or not caring that they were people who were dependent upon him, be it for votes or a salary.

...There are other stories out there. There are women who have experienced Kihuen’s relentless and juvenile attentions, unwanted and parried, who simply do not want to have their stories told. That is their right, and we will apply no pressure on anyone put in a difficult situation by Kihuen or any other elected official who has misused the power dynamic. The women these men have diminished and demeaned have the right to say when and whether their stories are told.

Which brings me to the question of whether Kihuen’s attempt to stave off resignation will work.

Kihuen, too, is a gambler. Just as he bet that none of these women he harassed would ever come forward-- maybe he thought they were thrilled he was coming on to them or believed his superior position would intimidate them-- he is rolling the dice that he can survive for a year with the floodgates not opening.

I thought the New York Times’ Alex Burns put it well, describing what Kihuen and fellow harasser Blake Farenthold are doing as a “plea-bargain,” trying to get their parties to allow them to have the lesser punishment of not running to avoid resigning.

(My guess is that in his current state of delusion Kihuen might actually believe that by March, when filing opens, the Ethics Committee will clear him and he can run again. Denial is powerful when one is clinging to one’s job title for dear life. More on that in a moment.)

The thought is ludicrous that Kihuen can possibly be effective-- as if he ever has been-- when the leaders want him gone and his Democratic colleagues from Nevada have either said he should resign or implied he should.

There was also a post Monday morning from Politico noting that several Democratic senators are urging Al Franken to reverse his resignation. In fact, Joe Manchin "who urged Franken not to step down to begin with-- at least not before he went through an Ethics Committee investigation-- said the Minnesota senator was railroaded by fellow Democrats," calling Gillibrand's lynch party "atrocious." They also noted that Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who issued a statement calling for Franken's resignation, has since told him privately that he regrets doing so."

“I think we acted prematurely, before we had all the facts,” said a third senator who has also called for the resignation, and has since expressed regret directly to Franken. “In retrospect, I think we acted too fast.” The senator asked not to be named because of the political sensitivity of the issue among Democrats.

As we mentioned yesterday, state Senator Daylin Leach-- the front-running candidate for Pat Meehan's suburban Philly seat-- has come under attack and and that attack became more serious as Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat up for reelection-- a weak, insecure, frightened guy, in way over his head, who is deathly afraid of pissing anyone off-- called for Leach to resign from the state Senate. "This disturbing behavior is absolutely unacceptable. Sen. Leach should resign," the governor said in a stinging rebuke of a fellow Democrat. "While he has been a leader on important policy issues, this conduct cannot be excused. As I have said previously, this is not a partisan issue. The lack of adequate structure for victims to report this type of behavior and feel protected is inexcusable, and underscores that Harrisburg’s culture must change." Leach is an old friend. I asked him if he was planning on resigning or withdrawing from the congressional race.

He told me he is "absolutely" staying in the race and absolutely not resigning. "Nobody can make me resign. And I never would. And if anyone wants a different nominee, they are going to have to beat me in a primary. Lets see if they can do that." A couple hours later I got a press release from his office saying "I am taking a step back from the congressional campaign to focus on my family..." Sunday night Daylin sent me a very long, "too long," he told me explanation of what was going on from his perspective. Monday I asked him if I could run it and he said ok. I doubt you'll see anything like it anywhere else.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has released a story which mentions me in connection with the #MeToo movement. I feel compelled to respond. First, I will lay out a chronology of how this story came to be, then I will tell my side of the story, and finally, I will offer some thoughts on where we are now as a country.

In 2014, when I ran for Congress, a woman (Colleen Kennedy) volunteered for my campaign. She worked enthusiastically and the campaign ended without incident. In fact team and I helped her find another job in politics and for some months after the campaign, she continued to express her support for me on social media.

I was therefore surprised when 6 months later, this supporter attacked me on twitter for what she mistakenly believed was me missing a vote on an education bill. She said I was a false progressive and a hypocrite, etc. When I tried to explain, she continued to attack me, so I disengaged from her and have not interacted with her since.

In June of this year, the first press stories about me contemplating a run for Congress in PA-7 appeared. At that time, out of the blue, I began hearing about a whisper campaign claiming that I was a sexual predator. Such whisper campaigns, while insidious, are not uncommon in politics. When I first ran for office in 2002 there was a whisper campaign that I was an anti-semite. Given that I was a life-long practicing Jew, (albeit with a non-Jewish last name) this was easy to disprove.

After several weeks, we heard from numerous people that my former supporter from 2014 was behind this. She did not claim that I had ever done anything to her, and in fact I was never alone with her in my life. This was just something she believed.

She proceeded to approach numerous press outlets and tell them that there were all kinds of sexual harassment complaints filed against me with the Senate, and she encouraged reporters to file “Right to Know” (RTK) requests to access said complaints.

Despite this former supporter’s representations, the answers to the RTK requests revealed that no ethical, civil, criminal or employment complaints had ever been filed. Most of the media then abandoned the story.

The exception was a pair of reporters from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Despite clear evidence that their “source” was not credible, they persisted and filed a second RTK request for the names of all “employees, interns or contractors” who had ever worked for me.

The Inquirer then began calling select former staffers and asking leading questions with no basis in fact. For example, “Did Daylin Leach ever do or say anything that made you uncomfortable?” If they said no, they were asked “Did he ever make jokes that made you uncomfortable.” If the answer was still no, they asked, “Did he make jokes that COULD make someone uncomfortable?” If still no, then “Would it surprise you to hear that others were uncomfortable?”

I know these things because many of the staffers, colleagues and political opponents they contacted, called me immediately afterwards asking me what the calls were all about, and to tell me word-for-word what was asked. The people who called were unanimous in their feeling that The Inquirer reporters were really hoping to hear something unseemly about me.

It is important to note that at this point, no one had come forward and complained that they were either the victim or had first hand knowledge of anything improper I had done.

If someone files a suit, or holds a press conference, it is perfectly legitimate to contact that person to check out the story. But what The Inquirer did in attempting to manufacture a scandal was so antithetical to basic journalistic ethics that I, and people I told about it, found it hard to believe.

Also since this started in June, I had been hearing that my primary opponent, Dan Muroff, was pushing the whisper campaign started by my former supporter. Several people called me to say that members of Mr. Muroff’s team and Mr. Muroff himself were calling them and saying versions of “something bad is going to come out about Daylin, so you had better support Dan.” [Ed- I might add at this point that, s an officer of a PAC, I've heard exactly the same thing from Muroff supporters and have heard the same thing from several campaigns in other parts of the country about other candidates trying to take advantage of what I sometimes refer to as "The Terror."]

We then became aware of the very close personal relationship between my former supporter and the Muroff campaign. Specifically, it was relayed to us that my former supporter and Dan Muroff’s campaign manager were “best friends.”

Concurrent with The Inquirer filing their initial RTK request, the Muroff campaign and my former supporter started referencing The Inquirer as where the damaging story about me was going to appear (despite the fact that there was no appropriate reason that either of them would have been notified of the RTK request).

I can’t express how personally painful the Muroff connection to this story was for my wife Jen and me. We had thought of Dan as a very close friend. We had been to each other’s homes (and his boat) and hung out as couples many times, and I had always supported Dan when he ran for office previously. This year, Dan chose to move into district I’ve lived in for 19 years to run for Congress, which he has every legal right to do. But he was very angry that I was running for the same seat.

Despite calling many of my former employees, The Inquirer was still coming up empty. In fact, the

I never claimed to be anybody’s Meow. But I knew I always treated my employees well. That’s why I have one of the lowest turnover rates in the Senate, and why many of my employees have stayed with me for well over a decade.

Over the course of the 31 years since I graduated law school, I have had more than 300 female employees, interns, and students. Not once has any ethics complaint, lawsuit, or criminal charge ever been filed against me. Further, nobody has ever complained to me, or quit a job, or dropped a class because of any conduct I engaged in.

This does not mean that I was a perfect person or that it’s not possible that someone could have disliked me, or felt unhappy with something I said or did. Certainly in the course of normal human interaction, very few people never say the wrong thing or are never perceived as annoying. But it seems like the bar which triggers some sort of full investigation by a respected newspaper should be higher.

Eventually after calling numerous people, the Inquirer notified my office that there were “allegations”. As presented to us, there were 4 allegations. They were all anonymous. The reporters wouldn’t tell me who was accusing me, or when specifically the incidents happened, or even what exactly they were about. Here is what I was told:

1. Someone said that in 2008, at the campaign office I told a joke referencing a wet T-Shirt contest as a fundraiser.
2. Also in 2008, also at the campaign office, there was a discussion of the attractiveness of Hollywood actresses, and I had offered my opinion.
3. In 2012, I had said “something” that “made a DNC volunteer mad” at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte. Said what? To who? Where? What context? The reporter indicated she didn’t know any of that information.
4. An unnamed attendee at a political fundraiser who did not work for me, said that during a conversation about getting petitions signed, I had momentarily touched her leg, not in a sexual way, but that she had felt uncomfortable nonetheless.

It is important to know that the RTK requests did not provide the names of the people described above as the RTK does not cover campaigns. It only applies to state employees. These were not state employees. So how did they find these people? It turns out that they are connected to the Muroff campaign and my former supporter.

In fact, 3 of these 4 allegations were from Aubrey Montgomery, a woman who now claims she was very upset about my sense of humor when she worked on my campaign in 2008, but who has continued to donate to me, come to my house for parties, give me advice, and pretend she was my friend in the years since.

I would now like to respond to these allegations. As I see it, they fall into 2 categories. The first one is humor.

I find it ironic that the Pennsylvania media loves to write stories tut-tutting about my humor. These same reporters have enthusiastically invited me to raise them money by performing comedy at their annual charity Gridiron Dinner for the past 9 years. The lead Inquirer reporter on this story has come to see me perform many times.

Some may remember that a reporter named Mario Cattabiani wrote a long expose about my humor 12 years ago. Yet after one of my gridiron performances, he took the time to call me and say that I was the “funniest comedian he had ever seen.”

Those who know me know that humor is an integral part of my personality. Frankly, it literally saved my life during a difficult childhood. I never met my father who ran off before I was born. My mother did her best, but had a lot of issues and was not a particularly engaged parent. I was placed in a series of foster homes which were often neglectful and even abusive. It was only by seeing the world through an absurdist lens was I able to cope.

I also think humor is a force for good in a very dark world. It helps us get through tough times, and is invaluable to me as an elected official. I am one of the most requested speakers in the state because I give a good speech, which is usually, in part, funny. Humor diffuses tension and makes people feel included. It’s one of my few traits of which I am unambiguously proud (as opposed to my hairline, singing voice, pole-vaulting ability, etc.)

The vast majority of my humor is not in any way sexual. Like most people, i joke around about food, or New Jersey, or the news or something Donald Trump said, or…New Jersey. But I am not pure. I have on occasion laughed at or told off-color jokes. I will admit to liking Sarah Silverman, or South Park or Chris Rock. But while I laugh at that sort of thing, that is not the brand of humor I usually use.

My humor is never mean. It is never directed at someone present. It is mostly self-deprecating, and if anyone is the butt of my jokes it’s almost always me. (or Trump, but…I mean..come on!). I’d also note that my jokes have gotten tamer over the years. Maybe its just a function of aging.

As for the specific jokes allegedly told in the campaign office, I honestly don’t remember them. It’s a lot of years to remember a joke. And frankly, without any context, or even hint as to who else was present, they don’t sound like things I’d say. But putting all of that aside, are silly jokes told in the presence of other adults a decade ago really worthy of an expose in the Philadelphia Inquirer?

The other allegation involves me touching someone’s leg. And to be clear, I do not know this person. She did not work for me. I have had no contact with her before or since. I am told I had a brief conversation with her about getting ballot petitions signed. As for touching the leg, I have absolutely no memory of this conversation or any interaction with her leg.

That said, as a general matter, it is possible that I touched her leg. I do sometimes touch people, men and women, when I am talking to them. I might place a hand on a shoulder, or clasp a fore-arm, or punctuate the end of a conversation with a pat on the back or the knee and a farewell. Some of you have seen the recent viral video of Representative Matt Bradford touching Representative Darryl Metcalfe’s arm, and Rep. Metcalfe freaking out.

Well, I sometimes do the same thing (the Bradford thing, not the Metcalfe). I always viewed it as a way to connect, and often do it without even noticing. Again, I have never received a complaint.

Further, I will concede that it is not all that difficult to tell me and George Clooney apart. Yet, for whatever reason, I am touched all the time. My shoulder or arm is clasped, strangers and acquaintances put their arms around me for photographs, I am hugged, kissed and patted on the back a number of times every day when I am out in public. I never interpret these touches as sexual, because they aren’t.

But maybe this woman didn’t like some man touching her leg. And she has every right to not like it. It’s her body. But there was nothing sexual about it, and nobody alleges there was. In fact, the reporter specifically told me that nobody alleged that I touched them in a sexual way.

And again, why this is a story in the newspaper is not clear. I am far less touchy than many other people we all know (see e.g. Joe Biden). And if we are doing a story on everyone who ever touches anyone else in politics, or in life, the Inquirer will have to add a new daily section to the paper.

As someone who has been dragged through this for several months, I’d like to conclude by offering some thoughts on where we are.

First, to be clear, the recent discussion of sexual assault is long overdue. Harvey Weinstein is a monster. He has raped or assaulted scores of women. He should be in prison. Kevin Spacey, Roy Moore and Donald Trump appear to be serial predators. No person should have to endure or fear this sort of assault, not only on their body, but on their dignity and their very worth as a human being.

I have spent my life fighting to change the laws to reflect our highest aspirations for gender equality. Equal Pay legislation, access to emergency contraception, contraception equity, the banning of shackling of pregnant prisoners, and mandatory paid family leave are all my bills. All of my employees who have children may take 3 months of paid maternity (or paternity leave). If you search Youtube, you will see my repeated and passionate floor arguments against efforts to restrict women’s reproductive choices.

I hire and promote women aggressively. Women have been my Chief-of-Staff on the legislative side, and four of my campaign mangers on the political side. I have supported groups like Emerge to increase the number of women elected to office in our Commonwealth. I am married to an incredibly strong woman who is among the most talented psychologists practicing. Our daughter Brennan, at 16 has already taken on the national right-wing attack machine and is currently in Washington DC as a US Senate Page.

Obviously, a good history on women’s rights is no justification for bad conduct. But I do believe in assessing allegations as thin and obscure as the ones against me, intent is important. And whether one has a history of respecting or disrespecting women is relevant.

However, I worry that there are some off-notes about the current frenzy over sexual misbehavior. We want to stop predatory and demeaning behavior. We don’t want to stop all normal human interaction. We don’t want to metaphorically turn every humorous quip or innocent pat into an unpardonable crime.

If a man or a woman is uncomfortable with a non-sexual squeeze of the arm or an offered high-5, then they should feel free to say so and that should be respected. But the default option should not be that men and women view each other as radioactive. We shouldn’t all wear Hazmat suits to work for fear that the slightest arm-brush will trigger an investigation.

Men who have done horrible things to women, using force, or groping or persistently propositioning or sending unwanted obscene photos, etc., should be held to account. But having men steeped in terror, staying up nights wracking their brains for who in the last 40 years they may have told the wrong joke to, or who might have misinterpreted a congratulatory hug on the receipt of good news as a sexual come-on does not help women. Fear is not respect. And avoidance is not equality.

We must also remember that our entire system of justice is founded on the notion of due process. Credible accusations of serious misconduct must be taken seriously. But blind belief of either side in a dispute is not a part of our justice system for a reason. Remember, in the context of the current discussion, some of those accused will be our brothers, sons, fathers. They deserve to be heard too.

What I’m saying is that exposure and reckoning have their place, but so does proportionality and a recognition of how people actually live their daily lives. I’ve been to many work-places, not just my own. People pretty much are the same in all of them. They like to be friends, or at least friendly with their co-workers. They like to laugh and feel connected. They want to feel safe within a bond of trust. And trust comes from seeing your colleagues as real people.

I wish the media was more responsible and focused on how our elections are being stolen or what its like to live in deep poverty, or maybe how our current economic policy disproportionately harms women, and less on gotcha stories designed to earn clicks. I wish they covered actual stories rather than tried to create sensational ones. But I can’t control that.

What I can do is refuse to let a newspaper, which allowed itself to be weaponized by a rival political campaign stop me from fighting for what I’ve fought for all my life. And that’s exactly what I will do.

GOP Senators Still Struggling With The Consequences Of Voting For The Hated TrumpCare Bill

Paid for by Mike Pence

Sunday afternoon we asked a question about Trump’s deranged, uncontrolled vengefulness in regard to the GOP’s ability to hold onto the crucial Nevada Senate seat of Dean Heller who has flatly stated he won’t vote for TrumpCare. A very shady Trump/Pence controlled SuperPAC, America First Policies, announced they would retaliate against Heller with a million dollars worth of TV, online ads and a very lame social media effort that has completely and hilariously backfired, tying him to Schumer and Pelosi, just about the worst thing you can say about a Republican in the claustrophobic little world of Trump die-hards. (By the way, it's illegal for Trump and Pence to be coordinating with a SuperPAC.) The goal is probably not to get Heller to change his vote-- he’s probably been granted dispensation by Myrtle the Turtle in light of his uphill reelection prospects-- as much as it is to punish him and to warn other Republicans-- particularly Susan Collins (R-ME), Rob Portman (R-OH) Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Dan Sullivan (R-AK)-- not to mess with Señor Trumpanzee. Trump despises Heller, because Heller told the media he won’t vote for him in the 2016 election, and doesn’t care if he’s jeopardizing his seat or not. He just wants revenge, something driving McConnell-- who threw his hands up in disgust today-- insane, driving him to postpone the vote until... they can round up enough Republicans to vote for this turd. Meanwhile, McConnell made sure tp blame it all on Trump's lack of ability as a closer.

America First Policies has already launched a social media campaign to turn Trump supporters against Heller for “standing with Pelosi” and warning him-- and other senators-- “If you’re opposed to this bill, we’re opposed to you.” The NRSC is supposedly furious at the White House and feel this is a pure Bannon move that plays directly into Trump’s infantile id. Trump is revealing in their discomfort since he blames them for the disaster his Regime has already turned into and for his inability to snap his fingers and get whatever he wants immediately and without question. One DSCC staffer told me this is completely demoralizing and that his wife is urging him to quit for the sake of his own emotional stability. “We’ve been spending an inordinate amount of energy trying to save this seat and-- poof, in one stroke, Bannon has destroyed all of our efforts… I doubt that even Collins or Portman will be bullied by this and I know for a fact that Murkowski won’t be.”

Others are blaming Mike Pence, since, as their chief fundraiser, he’s been in control of the America First Policies purse-strings and because Pence staffers are calling the shots for the group. The Pence people were chastised by Bannon for not being aggressive enough against the small handful of mainstream Republicans who opposed TrumpCare in the House and insisted America First Policies make up for it in the Senate, irrespective of the fact that senators are very prickly creatures who don’t take kindly to being pushed around, especially not publicly.

John Ralston was rather definitive about Heller’s situation. Heller, he wrote Sunday, “is dead. Five hundred days before voters decide his fate, Nevada’s senior senator needed a life preserver. So with his poll numbers in the subterranean region, below President Trump’s in Nevada, Heller grabbed onto one named Brian Sandoval, an immensely popular governor. It’s hard to describe the surreality of Friday’s scene in which Sandoval, who was the first GOP governor to expand Medicaid and who has credited it with putting 200,000 more Nevadans on the health care rolls, protecting Heller, who has more than once called for a phase-out of the program. Suddenly, the protean Heller was against the cessation of expanded Medicaid after he was for it, against the new Obamacare repeal after saying he wanted to get to yes, and against losing his Senate seat after being willing to give it up to run for the job his new protector holds. (Heller really wants to be governor, not U.S. senator.)”

Politics is no different than life: If you try to please everyone, you please no one.

And that is where Heller is now: He has a base problem because he was similarly equivocal during 2016 about the president and now is on record opposing the bill Donald Trump supports. And even though he is now on the side that indies and Democrats like on health care, they don’t trust him to stick to his word.

…People can say that Heller did this out of raw political expediency and doesn’t believe anything he said Friday. He has earned that skepticism… [S]ome of Heller’s biggest backers are billionaires who work on Las Vegas Boulevard South, and they can be none too happy that their man just came out against their tax cuts.

A billionaire here and a billionaire there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money against him… Of course, any anger directed at Heller by these donors is foolish. If they would pause counting their money for a few minutes and stop obsessing about how much more lucre they need, they might realize that the only chance to keep that seat in GOP hands is for Heller to do what he did.

Heller is a mainstream conservative, what the media loves calling a “moderate” (which he really isn’t). No one will ever refer to Iowa freshman senator Joni Ernst as a moderate or as remotely mainstream. She’s a far right walking freak show who has been firmly allied with Trump. But she’s also coming to grips with the swingy nature of her state and has been noticeably quiet on whether or not she’s support the Senate version ion TrumpCare. No one ever mentions her name as someone who might not. But Sunday The Hill reported that she’s decided to poll Iowans on how she should vote. Iowans strongly oppose TrumpCare so this should be an interesting-- and probably dishonest-- exercise.

She e-mailed Iowans-- which Iowans I’m not certain-- with a typical GOP talking points slam against the Affordable Care Act, hoping, no doubt, for a vote in favor of TrumpCare. I doubt we’ll ever find out the results of her poll and no one expects her to vote against it no matter what. Meanwhile, next door in Nebraska, the very conservative and very anti-Trump senator, Ben Sasse was at the Koch brothers summit over the weekend and echoed their line that TrumpCare isn’t conservative enough. He says he’s not committed to voting for it. I would call it extremely unlikely that Sasse will vote no.

Why Isn't Gun Safety More Of An Issue This Cycle?

When Blue America polled issues that would motivate suburban voters to support our progressive candidates around the country, we found gun safety high on every list in every single district. Based on that, two of our mobile billboards, on in NV-04 (North Las Vegas) and one in NY-02 (Long Island's South Shore), are all about gun safety. The DCCC has talked a good game on this but DCCC head Ben Ray Lujan is a quiet backer of gun groups and is one of the few Democrats in the House still taking bribes from gun manufacturers and their lobbyists. The DCCC recruited and is spending millions of dollars to elect NRA allies like Lon Johnson (Blue Dog-MI), Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX), Darren Soto (New Dem-FL) and Lou Correa (Blue Dog-CA).

It's good issue for Democrats but because of the Blue Dogs and New Dems who control the party apparatus, it isn't being exploited properly. Corrupted conservaDems like Lujan, Israel, Hoyer, et al don't want to embarrass the few Democrats who still vote with the GOP and the NRA, so they soft peddle an issue they should be emphasizing.

The NRA and associated groups are spending tens of millions of dollars this cycle, as this report from Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington (CREW) makes clear-- and not always legally.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is well known for using its deep pockets and passionate membership to fight off efforts at gun control, even in the wake of mass shootings. But it’s not the only gun organization spending big money to influence gun policy.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms industry’s trade association, is taking aim at the 2016 election. The group, which represents gun manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, is investing heavily in its #GunVote voter mobilization campaign, all with an eye towards mobilizing gun owners to elect pro-gun candidates while defeating advocates of gun control.

The NSSF’s 2016 program is being directly underwritten by the industry. At least nine firearms manufacturers and one retailer have officially contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the #GunVote campaign in the 2016 election cycle, committing more than $1.35 million so far.

The president of one of the contributing companies, Hornady Manufacturing, suggested his company was supporting the effort specifically to target Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. “For the first time in our nation’s history, we have a Presidential candidate who is openly running against the lawful commerce in firearms, which is a prerequisite to our ability to exercise our Second Amendment rights,” said Stephen Hornady in the NSSF’s press release about his company’s $250,000 contribution.

Smith & Wesson made the largest contribution to the #GunVote campaign, giving $500,000 on August 3rd. The company, which is headquartered in Springfield, MA, said it donated the money in response to Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s move to ban the sale of certain assault rifles to civilians. Several gun and gun accessory manufacturers have made six-figure donations to the campaign: Connecticut firearms manufacturer O.F. Mossberg & Sons contributed $150,000 and SIG SAUER contributed $100,000, as did the Beretta Holding Group,  Sturm, Ruger & Company, and SilencerCo. Pistol maker Taurus contributed $50,000 while riflescope manufacturer Leupold & Stevens became an Ambassador’s Club level donor, though the company did not reveal the dollar amount of its contribution. Outdoor retailer Gander Mountain has also announced its support for the voter mobilization effort, saying it made “a significant contribution” to the campaign and will feature #GunVote materials in its stores.

NSSF’s #GunVote campaign has focused on former Secretary of State Clinton all year, casting her positions on guns negatively while emphasizing the need for gun owners to vote in November. For instance, in January 2016, the NSSF released a video highlighting Sec. Clinton’s statement that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the 2nd Amendment” and the likelihood that the next president will appoint several Supreme Court justices. After showing footage of Sec. Clinton, the clip declares, “We need a President and Senate who will defend the 2nd Amendment.” Three days later, the NSSF released a similar video consisting of footage of Sec. Clinton praising the idea of appointing President Barack Obama to the Supreme Court, closing with the same message about the White House and the Senate.

In August, #GunVote posted a video on its Facebook page featuring both President Obama’s and Sec. Clinton’s faces juxtaposed with the phrase, “Anti-gun politicians are taking aim at your rights” before encouraging voters to visit gunvote.org to learn more about how to protect gun rights. The video is just one in a series claiming that politicians are “coming after your gun rights” and “want you to sit out of the election.” President Obama and Sec. Clinton are regularly invoked in the videos, which urge viewers to get to the polls to protect gun rights.

Before November, the organization may attempt to intervene more directly in the election. In October 2014, the NSSF broadcast TV and radio ads, promoted as part of the #GunVote campaign, attacking Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D). The organization reported spending more than $240,000 on independent expenditures to Connecticut’s campaign finance authorities, but claimed the money was for “issue advocacy voter education” that “neither supports nor opposes a candidate,” even though the TV ad argued that “on Election Day all citizens” should “reject Dannel Malloy’s politics of divisiveness.” It’s unknown how much the NSSF spent on its Colorado ad, which closed by saying, “Maybe it’s time for John Hickenlooper to hit the road.” A spokesman said the ad aired on cable TV in the state, but the NSSF did not report making any independent expenditures or electioneering communications to Colorado’s Secretary of State.

Despite these electorally-focused ad campaigns, the NSSF also did not disclose any political expenditures on its 2014 tax return. In 2014, the NSSF also gave $40,450 to the Republican Governors Association and $15,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association, contributions to political organization that were also not disclosed on the group’s 2014 tax forms.

As a section 501(c)(6) tax-exempt organization, the NSSF can legally spend money to influence elections, but politics cannot be the group’s primary purpose and it is required to report to the IRS how much it spends on political activity. The organization is not required to disclose its donors and membership.

...Lobbying records indicate that the NSSF has spent more than a million dollars each year since 2001 to ward off gun control legislation in Congress, and its lobbying spending has been roughly on par with that of the NRA in recent years. This year so far, the NSSF has reported spending $1.64 million on lobbying. Most recently the group has reported lobbying on a vast number of bills, including the Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act (HR 2710), the Firearms Manufacturers and Dealers Protection Act (HR 1413/S 477), and many others.

With gun issues taking center stage in 2016, the NSSF is poised to spend more than ever to influence the outcome of the election. If the record–breaking contributions to #GunVote are any indication, the gun-based businesses that make up the group’s membership appear ready to spend as much as necessary to beat pro-gun control candidates at the ballot box.

As Martin Kaste reported for NPR last week, "gun control has been a minor theme of this year's presidential election, as Hillary Clinton promises to close 'loopholes' in the background checks for gun purchasers, and Donald Trump pledges 'unwavering support' for the Second Amendment." Gun groups and gun safety groups are waging their big battles on a state-level, including on ballot initiatives.

Washington is a prime example. Like many western states, it has a tradition of permissive gun laws; there's no minimum waiting period to buy a gun, and the state doesn't even require safety training for people who carry concealed firearms. In 2013, legislation to require criminal background checks for most gun sales died in the state House of Representatives. So in 2014, activists went around the legislature, putting background checks on the state ballot. It passed by a wide margin.

This year, similar background check laws are on the ballot in Nevada and Maine; in California, there's a ballot measure to require background checks for buyers of ammunition.

In Washington state, meanwhile, gun control activists are building on their success with another ballot initiative. This one gives courts the ability to take guns away from people deemed to be dangerous to themselves or others. It's very well-funded, both by local tech billionaires, as well as Everytown for Gun Safety, the national gun control group founded by Michael Bloomberg.

...Pro-gun groups have put money into opposing the ballot initiatives in Maine, Nevada and California, but they're not keeping pace with gun control groups. That may be in part because of their strategic decision to spend heavily on behalf of Donald Trump.

The NRA still spends millions-- but Stepleton says it's putting that money more into lobbying and independent expenditures for specific candidates. That leaves an opening for the gun control groups, as they focus on ballot initiatives.

"This is really taking a page from the marriage equality playbook," says Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, one of the groups under the Everytown for Gun Safety umbrella. She compares their strategy to the decision made by activists for same sex marriage, after they faced defeats in Congress in the 1990s.

"[They said,] 'We're going to pivot, and go to the states and companies, and we're going to get them to put laws and policies in place that point Congress and the Supreme Court in the direction that this nation is headed in,'" Watts says. "And that's exactly what we have done."

Cheryl Stumbo is a gun control activist in Washington, who survived the mass shooting at Seattle's Jewish Federation in 2006. She's been heavily involved in the ballot initiatives, and she frames the strategy as one of picking the right battles.

"What can we do that's going to save the most number of lives right now, and what can we win," she says. "So that we can keep going and create momentum."

The NRA is spending a lot on federal elections as usual. Their biggest independent expenditures were in the presidential race-- $7,447,391 smearing Hillary and $1,831,706 bolstering Trump. The biggest Senate races for them have been North Carolina ($3,638,558 for Burr), Missouri ($2,119,387 for Blunt), Ohio ($1,794,551 for Portman), Nevada ($688,138 for Heck) and Indiana ($648,742 for Young). In House races they've handed out over 700,000 dollars to gun-nuts, mostly to Republicans, of course, but to these Democrats as well:

• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Tim Walz (MN)

The dozen biggest contributions were all the right-wing Republicans who have proven themselves to be 100% NRA tools and anti-gun safety extremists:

• Barbara Comstock (R-VA)- $17,800
• John Katko (R-NY)- $17,300
• Will Hurd (R-TX)- $14,850
• Bruce Poliquin (R-ME)- $14,850
• Frank Guinta (R-NH)- $12,850
• Lee Zeldin (R-NY)- $12,350
• John Faso (R-NY)- $10,900
• Donald Bacon (R-NE)- $9,900
• Mike Coffman (R-CO)- $9,900
• Mike Gallagher (R-WI)- $9,900
• Rod Blum (R-IA)- $7,450
• Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)- $7,450

This chart from Open Secrets shows the biggest recipients of gun nut money across Congress for this cycle, not just the NRA but all the other gun manufacturing lobbyist groups as well. This is just direct money, to the candidates and their PACs, not independent expenditures.

Nevada's foremost election expert, Jon Ralston predicted a Blue Wave in the Silver State this morning. He wrote that it will give victories to Hillary (46-40%), Cortez Masto (46-43%), Rosen (48-45%) and that the state legislature will be taken over by the Democrats. And the biggest victory of all? The most progressive candidate of all, of course, Ruben Kihuen, who, Ralston predicts, will beat Cresent Hardy 51-47%. "The early vote has given Kihuen an insurmountable lead." Our mobile billboard is driving around North Las Vegas and environs right through Tuesday evening ad will be at the Bernie rally in Las Vegas this afternoon. I hope it's helped clarify one really important issue the DCCC has over-looked. If you click the images you'll have an easier time reading them.

GOP Imploding

This hasn't been a good election cycle for Paul Ryan. He got muscled out of the early running for the presidential nomination by a a bunch of buffoons The Deep Bench and then he wound up jumping on the Trump Train to nowhere. It's been all downhill from there and yesterday Trump took a couple of seconds out of his busy schedule attacking CNN to fart in Ryan's face:

This morning Trump was on twitter again, attacking Ryan again, delusional and ranting that he won the debate-- he didn't-- and that Ryan is a "very weak and ineffective leader," adding that Ryan had "had a bad conference call where his members went wild at his disloyalty." He seems to be setting Ryan up as someone he can blame after he loses next month. "It's hard to do well," he tweeted this morning, "when Paul Ryan and others give zero support." Ryan may soon learn with the ire of the deplorables is worth in terms of votes.

Now pundits on Politico are debating whether or not he'll unendorse his party's vulgarian presidential nominee. "He feels torn between his own conscience and his obligations as the top Republican in the country... about saving his massive 60-seat majority... Many of his closest allies say left to his own devices, he'd dump Trump. But Ryan, who's seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2020, has held on, despite some possible long-term political upside of abandoning Trump. The immediate calculation is this: If Ryan pulls his endorsement, the base could revolt or stay home on Election Day, damaging GOP House candidates. Plus, in some of the deep red districts around the country, constituents want House Republicans to rally around Trump no matter what." Trump was reacting to the conference call that Ryan had with the House Republican conference early Monday morning after a tumultuous weekend for Trump that ended in another disastrous debate performance Sunday night. Trump allies inside Ryan's conference immediately reported to Trump Tower that Ryan had signaled he was giving up on the idea of the GOP winning the White House and is now strictly focused on "ensuring Hillary Clinton doesn't get a blank check as president with a Democratic-controlled Congress."

Even as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel called on Paul Ryan to unendorse Trump, Ryan said he's done defendingTrump's outlandish statements and that he won't campaign with him or for him and that other members are on their own in deciding what to do about Trump. "You all need to do what's best for you in your district," he was reported to have said. In their reporting, for the NYTimes, Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin called Ryan's call "a hammer blow to Donald J. Trump’s presidential candidacy Monday, dashing any remaining semblance of party unity and inviting fierce backlash from his own caucus." The Journal Sentinel editors wrote that Ryan "has tiptoed to the water’s edge but he still won’t jump in. If he really wants to maintain the integrity of the Republican Party and its principles-- and save down ticket candidates-- Ryan needs to repudiate his endorsement of GOP nominee Donald Trump. Instead, Ryan keeps dancing around the edges... [H]e thinks by doing so, he would endanger his party’s chances of winning other elections, especially in the House. But by continuing to stand by (if somewhat apart) the GOP pretender for the presidency, Ryan calls into question the party’s basic principles, which ultimately may have the opposite effect of what he wants... Ryan and other Republican leaders should make clear that they will fight tooth and nail for the Republican Party but that Donald Trump does not deserve their endorsements."

There was a backlash from Trumpists on Ryan's call-- the kind of Republicans who voted against the Violence Against Women Act and see nothing wrong with Trump's attitude and behavior towards women. Like California nincompoop Dana Rohrabacher (who sits safely in an R+7 district the DCCC isn't contesting. Rohrabacher raised $713,881 compared to his grassroots opponent's $54,155). He "attacked Republicans stepping away from Mr. Trump as 'cowards,' three lawmakers said. Another, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona, used graphic language to describe abortion and said allowing Mrs. Clinton into the White House would end with fetuses being destroyed 'limb from limb.'" Franks, who many inside the GOP caucus say is certifiably insane-- torn apart internally because by his struggle against his own homosexuality while attempting to be the most anti-gay member of a very anti-gay party-- is in an even redder district that Rohrabacher. His hellhole in the Arizona desert has a PVI of R+15 and his district is so ignored by the DCCC that his only opponent is a write-in candidate!

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Mr. Ryan, confirmed that his sole priority for the remainder of the election would be defending congressional Republicans.

“The speaker is going to spend the next month focused entirely on protecting our congressional majorities,” Ms. Strong said.

Ms. Strong said there was “no update” regarding Mr. Ryan’s endorsement of Mr. Trump.

The breach between Mr. Ryan and Mr. Trump concluded five months in which the two men have alternated between friction and courtship, eventually forging an uneasy working relationship only to see it collapse in the final weeks of the race.

The consequences for both men are enormous. Mr. Ryan and other Republican leaders fear that Mr. Trump’s flagging campaign could unwind their majorities in the House and Senate, while Mr. Trump can ill afford rejection from more prominent Republicans.

...Representative Scott Rigell of Virginia, a Republican who has long been opposed to Mr. Trump, said there was a general sense in the House that more humiliating disclosures about Mr. Trump were likely to come before Nov. 8, Election Day.

“There’s a consensus, even among supporters, that the likelihood of something else breaking in a very embarrassing and negative fashion, is certainly better than 50-50,” said Mr. Rigell, who joined the call on Monday. “The conference, members, et cetera, are bracing themselves for another salvo of this.”

...[I]n a potentially ominous sign for the party, Kellyanne Conway, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, also offered a note of warning for Republicans fleeing Mr. Trump. Mr. Ryan, she noted on television, had been booed by Trump fans over the weekend in Wisconsin after asking Mr. Trump not to attend a political event in his home state.

Ms. Conway also repeatedly indicated that she was aware of Republican lawmakers who had behaved inappropriately toward young women, and whose criticism of Mr. Trump was therefore hypocritical.

And it wasn't just Kellyanne signaling that there would be a price to pay if the GOP officially abandons Trump. Trump's somewhat psychotic official spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, tweeted Monday that "people from all over the country" will vote for Trump but not for down ballot candidates. Music to Ryan's ears? Yeah... Ted Nugent's unreleased solo album.

Back to Ryan's call for a moment. The fear, of course, isn't really about Trump-- they all wish Trump Force One would crash and burn-- it's about the "best" strategy for keeping a House majority they feel is starting to slip from their grasp.

Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, urged members on the conference call to take new polls in their districts to gauge the impact of Mr. Trump’s political slide.

Mr. Walden said they should brace for a steep erosion of support for Mr. Trump and acknowledged the falloff could undermine congressional candidates, too. He asked the entire caucus to contribute quickly to the party’s campaign arm, making it clear they needed to bolster their defenses across the country.

Still, many members were pointed in their expressions of dismay, warning Mr. Ryan of grave consequences, in November and beyond, if Mr. Trump’s campaign collapses altogether. Representative Billy Long of Missouri spoke up in Mr. Trump’s defense, citing the danger of losing the Supreme Court in the event of a Clinton victory.

“Many of us commented that if Hillary picks the next two to four judges, it will change the fabric of our country of 40, 50 years,” Mr. Long said of the call. “Abortion and the Second Amendment, also, and lots of Supreme Court concerns.”

The DSCC is running ads based on the video above. Republicans are in a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation with Trump. And many of them are too frightened to take a coherent stand. Very endangered Long Island Congressman Peter King, for example, tells people on one day that Trump is unfit for office and follows that up the next day by urging them to vote for him. Voters are starting it think he's as crazy as Trump is. Yesterday, the Cincinnati Enquirer, in light of the new TV that and all but dead Ted Strickland campaign just released (below), wrote that late on Saturday, Senator Rob Portman, "who had spent months defending or dodging Trump's missteps, said he couldn't vote for the GOP nominee. He would write in GOP vice presidential candidate Mike Pence instead. (Although a vote for Pence wouldn't even count because he isn't an official write-in candidate.)"

Portman's about-face almost certainly hurts him with devoted Trump supporters. At a Warren County debate watch party Sunday night, Betty Dubin said she wouldn't vote for Portman after the senator abandoned Trump. Voters like Dubin won't vote for Strickland, but Democrats hope they skip the Senate race when casting their ballots.

Portman's change of heart might play well with GOP voters who find Trump unsavory. But are those new voters for Portman? Probably not.

And Portman's destiny is still tied-- however tightly or tenuously-- to Trump's. If Republicans frustrated with Trump stay home, that's bad news for Portman.

In South Florida, Trump's last remaining loyalist, Mario Diaz-Balart, is being tormented by the same forces. Progressive Democrat Alina Valdes, as well as independents and mainstream Republicans, are calling on him to drop his support for Trump while Trump supporters are threatening to not vote for him if he does. Yesterday the Miami Herald's Patricia Mazzei reported that Diaz-Balart is so tied up in knots that he can't even give a straight answer about whether he backs Trump or not. After Diaz-Balart carefully distanced himself from Trump's pussy-grabbing comments Saturday, he was asked if he's dropping his support for Trump. He's not capable of giving a straight-forward answer. How do you say "weasel" in Spanish? Is it "comadreja?"

His spokeswoman, Katrina Valdés, responded to the Miami Herald by saying Diaz-Balart never said he'd vote for Trump in the first place. She pointed to a statement from the congressman in May declaring his intention to "vote for the Republican nominee."

That would be Trump, of course.

And yet, Valdés insisted, Diaz-Balart "has not endorsed a candidate in the general election."

Diaz-Balart certainly hasn't used the word endorsement, and he's repeatedly said he won't vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton. But does he still intend to vote for him?

"His statement has not changed," Valdés said late Saturday. "His vote is conditioned on the clarification of a number of important issues that he has repeatedly said need to addressed by the nominee. As of tonight at 8:15 PM, several of those issues have not been clarified. That is where he still stands."

Diaz-Balart hasn't said what he'll do if he doesn't get his requested "clarification" from Trump. The congressman praised Trump for adopting a hard line on Cuba policy last month in Miami. Diaz-Balart then said he needed more evidence before he could condemn a report that Trump's casino company broke the Cuban trade embargo in 1998.

Alina Valdes, who has been endorsed by Blue America-- you can contribute to her grassroots campaign here-- pointed out that "Diaz-Balart is the only South Florida Cuban-American who still supports the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, for president. Despite all the horrible things Teflon Don has said about Latinos, women, African-Americans, Muslims, and anything not white and male, he has maintained his loyalty to party over country."

Jon Ralston has a smart take on this today. Writing for the Reno Gazette Journal He looked at Joe Heck's and Cresent Hardy's recent jettisoning of now toxic Trump. He also brought up Brian Sandoval and Dean Heller on charges of hypocrisy.

They came to bury Trump, and they expect praise.

They are all honorable men, these elected officials in the Nevada GOP, who bravely decided after all of this time that Donald Trump is unfit for office. And like their counterparts across the country, they are trying to kill Trump to avoid their own funerals.

The day after the tape emerged showing Trump sounding like a sexual predator and just a few hours after he apologized in a video in which he was held hostage by a teleprompter, Reps. Joe Heck and Cresent Hardy disavowed him Saturday at a Southern Nevada rally, ironically standing near the man who lost the last presidential race, Mitt Romney. They joined a countrywide chorus of Louis Renaults, shocked, shocked to discover Trump is a sociopath.

...Just look at the words they all used and see the blatant hypocrisy unmasked, the foundation of their arguments crumble. They even talked about Trump’s pattern of behavior, an admission of their guilt; they all should be convicted of failed leadership followed by rank opportunism.

It wasn’t repulsive enough to the governor of Mexican heritage when Trump announced in June 2015 and talked about Mexican rapists and murderers and later when he smeared a judge of Mexican descent?

It wasn’t lacking ethical and moral decency for the congressman cum brigadier general when Trump derided John McCain’s service, saying he likes his heroes not to be captured, or when he claimed to have raised money for veterans that he did not?

It didn’t degrade women enough for the rookie congressman when Trump alluded to Megyn Kelly’s menstruation or called Rosie O’Donnell a “fat pig” or criticized a former Miss Universe for gaining weight?

It would fill up too much internet bandwidth to list all of the Trumpian depredations that should have led these men to disavow the GOP nominee long ago. These were disqualifying acts then just as the videotaped comments are now.

They can say this is much worse because Trump essentially says he committed sexual assault, but is that the standard these elected officials use? I will support him despite his misogyny, nativism and racism, but this is a bridge too far? This is what they considered praiseworthy?

The irony here, of course, is while this is purely political and temporal-- exactly two weeks before early voting begins-- this is a no-win situation for them. But by lying down with Trump for so long, they have made their own bed.

And that is the problem every single Republican office holder has to grapple with now. They are so lucky the DCCC is the most incompetent organization that ever existed. One more example: the Democratic candidate for Congress in northern Nevada, Chip Evans, released the following statement on incumbent Mark Amodei's decision to remain Trump's Nevada campaign chairman.

"Governor Sandoval had it right when he renounced his support for Donald Trump-- ‘this video exposed not just words, but now an established pattern which I find repulsive and unacceptable for a candidate for President of the United States.’ I agree. Congressman Amodei’s choice to remain as Trump’s Nevada Campaign Chairman does not show the same principled leadership. It’s another example of Amodei’s poor judgment and consistent pattern of putting his party and his own interests before the people he was elected to represent. Remember, Trump’s already had his ‘30 days’ and then some to audition for the job. If Amodei is ‘genuinely concerned about the future of our country’ and looking for someone ‘who will set the tone in foreign policy, our economy… and gender,’ how can Amodei continue to embrace a candidate that has insulted our military by calling them ‘a disaster,’ wants to put nukes in Japan and South Korea, threatens to ‘shoot out of the water’ Iranian ships that make rude gestures to our navy, and proposes a tax plan that will hammer the middle class and cause a loss of 3.5 million jobs while adding $10 trillion to the deficit? It is time for a change. I’m confident northern Nevada’s hard-working families will see Amodei’s poor judgment and blind partisanship for what it is and bring him home in November."