Trump Rallies Drove Montana Voters To The Polls Bigly-- But They Voted For Democrat Jon Tester

Montana has been a pretty red state. In 2016, Trump clobbered Hillary there 56.5% to 35.9%. Hillary won only 6 of the state’s 56 counties. Democrats had plenty to worry about for their senator, Jon Tester. When he was first elected in 2006, he barely beat Republican incumbent, Conrad Burns— 199,845 (49.2%) to 196,283 (48.3%). With less than 50% of the vote, senators know they’re going to have a tough reelection fight. And sure enough in 2012, Tester was forced into a battle with Denny Rehberg, a sitting congressman. The result was another squeaker— 236,123 (48.6%) to 218,051 (44.9%). This cycle he knew another tough race was coming, as he faced off against State Auditor Matt Rosendale. Billionaire-funded Republican SuperPACs poured $16,993,026 into a non-stop smear campaign against Tester that blanketed the airwaves from Carter county in the southwest to Lincoln County in the northwest, but especially in the population centers of Cascade County, Flathead County, Gallatin County, Lewis and Clark County, Missoula County, Ravalli County and Yellowstone County.

And yet… Tester celebrated his first win over 50%! With immense turnout on both sides, he beat Rosendale 246,291 (50.1%) to 230,974 (47%). And he won Cascade, Gallatin, Lewis and Clark and Missoula counties as well as some of the rural parts of the state where Trump had trounced Hillary.

As Aaron Zitner and Dante Chinni reported for the Wall Street Journal last week, that Trump had “focused heavily on Montana this year, holding four rallies there since the summer. His visits, and the publicity they generated, likely are a central reason for high turnout. Vote tallies exceeded 2016 presidential levels in 15 of the state’s 56 counties.” The problem was that the controversial Trump circus inspired voters on both sides of the aisle. “Trump,” they wrote, “appeared to have an effect on both parties. In 10 of the counties where vote tallies topped 2016 totals, Democratic Sen. Jon Tester received a similar or greater share of the vote than he did in his last election, and he won more than 50% of the vote statewide.”

Trump’s first hate rally for Rosendale, from Great Falls on July 5, was broadcast nationally. Pence campaigned for him 19 days later. On September 6 Trump was back, this time in Billings. Three weeks later, Trumpanzee, Jr. held an in-state fundraiser for GOP fat cats. On October 2, Pence campaigned with Rosendale in Bozeman. A week later the candidates had their first debate and Tester wiped the floor with Rosendale, prompting Trump to rush out to Missoula a few days later to try to salvage the wreckage. Tester surged in the polling and Trump tried one more timep— November 3 in Bozeman. It wasn’t enough.

This ad, from McConnell’s smear machine linked Tester with Bernie and Medicare-for-All, shooting himself in the foot and driving up Tester’s polling numbers. Remember, McConnell is the most hated politician in America. Bernie is the most popular. In fact, in the 2016 primaries Bernie beat Hillary by 7 points, won most of the counties and beat Trump in some of them. These were the results in rural Glacier County:

• Bernie- 1,074
• Hillary- 928
• Trumpanzee- 357
• Cruz- 38

And these were the results in more urban and suburban Missoula county:

• Bernie- 13,271
• Hillary- 8,115
• Trumpanzee- 7,23
• Cruz- 1,026

Linking Tester to Bernie might have been smart for a closed GOP primary, where only Fox brainwashed zombies are allowed to vote, but in a general election just a couple of weeks away: really dumb.

Polling Stoopid-- Take Montana

How much damage is Trump doing to GOP candidates in red states like Montana?

Sunday, I noted that when you examine flippable districts, the Democrats' ceiling for a net gain is 88 seats. No one thinks the Democrats are going to win 88 seats-- not even me-- but they're going to be closer to 88 than the 23 reporters who don't know anything about electoral politics, nor the properties of a wave, keep writing about as the goal. Steven Shepard was doing just that at Politico yesterday.

Remember back in ancient times when Rasmussen was the joke of the polling industry and when every race they called was wrong and people called them the Republican polling firm? They're still that horrible. But they're not the worst any longer; the hokey, gimmicky NY Times/Siena poll is. And that's the one that other reporters use to parrot predictions. How many other polls call people at 11pm?

How about this poll for a laughing stock: the University of Montana's Big Sky poll, the mirror of image of Rasmussen? First a little background on Montana: The state's PVI is R+11, redder than Georgia, Mississippi, Indiana and Missouri. Obama lost both times he ran and Trump won the state 56.5% to 35.9%. The last time Jon Tester was up for reelection he won-- by the skin of his teeth-- against Denny Rehberg 236,123 (48.6%) to 218,051 (44.9%). It was even closer in 2006 (a Democratic wave year) when he beat crooked Republican Conrad Burns 199,845 (49.2%) to 196,283 (48.3%). But the Big Sky poll shows all bad news for Republicans, starting with job performance:

• Trump- 44% positive to 56% negative
• Sen. Steve Daines (R)- 37% postive to 63% negative
• Rep. Greg Gianforte (R)- 34% positive to 66% negative
• Gov. Steve Bullock (D)- 57% postive to 43% negative
• Sen. Jon Tester (D)- 55% positive to 45% negative

The poll got even more mind-boggling when they asked likely voters who they plan to vote for in the two statewide races next month. In the House race, they picked Democrat Kathleen Williams with 51% over GOP incumbent Greg Gianforte with 38%. It's worth mentioning that Gianforte has raised (including $1.5 of his own cash) around $7 million to less than a million by Williams. Montana is not one of the 88 districts in my most optimistic analysis! The 538 House forecaster gives her a 26.6% chance to win the seat:

And in the U.S. Seat race, Tester wipes the floor with Republican Matt Rosendale 56% to 32%... more in line with what other polls are finding. The 10 polls conducted since June have all found Tester ahead. Tester raised $14,093,719 to Rosendale's $1,966,002. Republican SuperPACs have thrown in around $10 attacking Tester and Democratic SuperPACs have spent around $8 million attacking Roasendale.

Don't get too excited about the House seat; this poll is absurd. Good ad though:

Jon Tester-- Not Nearly As Bad As The Other Trump-State Democrats

The other day, some babbling idiot on twitter, was whining about how dare anyone-- basically me, I assume-- think someone further left than Jon Tester could ever get elected in Montana. He wasn't worth responding to but why don't we take a glance back into Montana's ancient history to a time when someone considerably to the left of Jon Tester did get elected. And that person was... Jon Tester.

First off, it's worth noting that Tester's ProgressivePunch lifetime crucial vote score ain't that bad-- he gets a "B." Of the states that Trump won, the only Democrats who have better scores than Tester are Sherrod Brown (OH), Tammy Baldwin (WI), Gary Peters (MI), Debbie Stabenow (MI), and Bob Casey (PA). Meanwhile, Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV) and Doug Jones (AL) all have "F" scores. And while we're doing this exercise, let's examine FiveThirtyEight's Trump affinity scores. The lower the number, the less frequently the senator voted with Trump

• Jon Tester (MT)- 36.8%
• Bill Nelson (FL)- 42.7%
• Mark Warner (VA)- 43.4%
• Claire McCaskill (MO)-45.3%
• Doug Jones (AL)- 52.6%
• Joe Donnelly (IN)- 54.7%
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)- 55.3%
• Joe Manchin (WV)- 60.5%

In fact, Tester has the "bravest" score of any Democrat in the Senate, when you take his state's political performance into account. The other standout for bravery is Sherrod Brown. So... point is, based on his voting record, Tester's not bad. But let's get back to the dumb tweet-- and the 2006 election when Tester was first elected. I bet the idiot tweeter doesn't know that Tester was the first Senate netroots victory over Schumer!

Schumer was DSCC chair at the time and he was all in for state auditor John Morrison, a Wall Street hack and corporatist (like Schumer himself). Schumer's brilliant analysis was that someone as progressive and populist could never win against GOP incumbent Conrad Burns in such a red state. Scvhumer had sure Morrison swamped Tester in the funding race. But Schumer was as out of touch with Montana as anyone with their eyes open would expect. Running on a fierce progressive platform Tester kicked the Schumer candidate's ass 65,757 (60.77%) to 38,394 (35.48%) and then went on to beat the entrenched Republican-- albeit very narrowly: 199,845 (49.2%) to 196,283 (48.3%), despite Burns out-spending him $9,167,154 to $5,587,467.

Once Tester was in DC, he moved towards the center a bit, but he's no Donnelly or Manchin or Heitkamp. Voters in Montana seem to admire him for his independent spirit and he's done pretty well. In 2012, his first reelection bid, he was up against Republican Denny Rehberg (an at-large congressman) and Tester beat him 236,123 (48.6%) to 218,051 (44.6%), a far more comfortable margin.

This time, there's the Trump factor to consider. Trump beat Hillary statewide by a lot. But that had a lot to do with her. There could hardly have been a worse Democratic candidate for Montana. (Although Wasserman Schultz fixed it so that Hillary took 10 convention delegates to Bernie's 11, Bernie had beaten her 65,156 to 55,805.) Trump took 279.240 (56.2%) to her 177,709 (35.7%). Of Montana's 56 counties, she won 6. Tester's opponent this cycle is Matt Rosendale, the state's auditor and a failed congressional candidate, who won the 4-man primary with 33.8%. Every poll shows Tester winning in November, a July Survey Monkey poll for Axios 55-43%. As of the June 30 FEC reporting deadline, Tester was ahead $14,093,719 to $1,966,002.

I got to know Tester a bit when Schumer was the common enemy during the 2006 primary (obviously over a decade ago). At the time, I described Tester as in comparison to Morrison as more than just better than the other guy. He's a transformational politician, the kind of inspiring public servant who we will be able to look to for a genuine effort to actually make our nation a better place... Not a run-of-the-mill garden variety Democrat, but with the ability, the capacity and the intention of doing far more than just going along with the political whores who rule the roost Inside the Beltway... a straight shooter.

So who is this guy? I first started writing about him last July. My excitement has grown and grown as I've seen more of him in action. A 48 year old organic wheat farmer from Big Sandy and President of the State Senate, Jon announced his populist, progressive candidacy driving his tractor-trailer rig around Montana. He’s endorsed withdrawal from Iraq, a clean renewable energy policy (he actually sponsored a renewable energy standard in Montana), and is calling for expanded health care— including government funded health care for all children. He’s also endorsed a reasonable version of single-payer health insurance. Morrison (as a DLC shill) has more incommon with Burns on these issues than he has with Jon. Jon Tester's stands on the issues are what I expect from every Democrat; unfortunately my expectations are shot down more than they are realized... Like John Kerry, Tester is personally pro-Life. The good news is that he has a 100% pro-choice voting record in the State Senate. That's because to him it's a privacy issue between a woman and her physician (and anyone else she wants to talk about it with). He's a Montanan and he's not eager to see Big Government interfering in peoples' private lives. The gay issue is always the hardest for any politician not living in an urban area. But Tester hasn't ducked that one either. He's come out strongly against the hate and bigotry amendments the Republicans have tried passing and he's worked hard to make sure others in the State Senate understood the issue as well. The man has great instincts and we can expect him to come to progressive conclusions about important issues.

Less than a decade later I was plenty disappointed in him. But it was more about politics than about policy. He's not exactly the kind of incumbent Blue America would endorse or raise money for, but I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to vote for him if I lived in Montana. And I'm rooting for him to win.

Colluding With The Republicans To Help Wall Street Will Hurt Right Of Center Senate Democrats, Not Help Them

One strategy for conservative Democratic senators in Trump states to win reelection is to show voters back home how bipartisan they are. I wonder if touting the Wall-street friendly dismantling of Dodd-Frank is a good idea for Democrats. Republicans aren't going to vote for them; they have their own candidates. Perhaps some independents will. But how many Democrats will be discouraged by those tactics to not turn out in November? We'll find out in North Dakota, Indiana and Montana, where 3 endangered Democratic senators are running away from core Democratic values and embracing mainstream conservatism. Last Thursday Trump signed a bill Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly and Jon Tester had attached their name to as co-authors (though it was actually written by bank lobbyists).

Tester: "One-size-fits-all rules from Washington have been strangling Montana’s Main Street economy and threatening our rural way of life. When the extremes on both sides of the aisle tried to derail our efforts, we bucked partisan politics and instead found common ground."

Extremes? Who would that be? Elizabeth Warren and Bernie? I'm sure the 3 right-wing senators are aware that Bernie won the 2016 primaries in their states against the status quo candidate all three of them supported (Hillary).

• North Dakota:
• Bernie- 64.2%
• Hillary- 25.6%

• Indiana:
• Bernie- 52.5%
• Hillary- 47.5%

• Montana:
• Bernie- 51.1%
• Hillary- 44.6%

I can't imagine that any-- or many-- of these Bernie voters are going to vote for the Republican Senate challengers in November. After all, the Democratic incumbents are certainly the lesser of two evils. But I wonder how many of these Democrats are just fed up with voting for lesser evils and will just not turn out at all.

There are 56 counties in Montana. Bernie won 34 of them. 3 small ones were exactly tied. Only 5 have over 80,000 people:

• Yellowstone- 50.2% Hillary
• Missoula- 60.4% Bernie
• Gallatin- 57.0% Bernie
• Flathead- 55.5% Bernie
• Cascade- 52.7%

Is Tester going to explain to these people that Bernie is "extreme?" For wanting to keep banks from blowing up the economy again?

[W]hether the law will turn into electoral gold remains to be seen.

The banking industry remains deeply unpopular, and liberal activists have assailed the new law as a giveaway to the financial industry.

“There’s nobody that is going to be motivated to support someone because they’re proving their bipartisanship by giving banks what they want,” said a former Democratic strategist now leading a liberal nonprofit.

Trump made slashing Obama regulations a pillar of his 2016 campaign, and he pledged to “dismantle” Dodd-Frank shortly after his election. He hailed the new law as delivering on that promise.

“This is truly a great day for Americans, and a great day for workers and small businesses across the nation,” Trump said at the Thursday signing.

Heitkamp, Tester and Donnelly were key forces behind the successful loosening of the Dodd-Frank rules. The trio, along with Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), anchored the Democratic side of the negotiations.

...Heitkamp, Tester and Donnelly have also dismissed suggestions that they pushed to loosen the banking rules to protect their right flank in the midterm elections. While Heitkamp has avoided Trump’s wrath so far, the president has held rallies in Tester and Donnelly’s states in support of their Republican opponents.

“This election has nothing to do with this,” Tester said during a March press conference on the bill. “This has everything to do with access to capital and making sure rural America remains strong moving forward. If this bill didn't do that, I wouldn't support it."

While praise from Trump is toxic for Democrats in liberal strongholds, it could provide a boost to moderates from states where Trump is popular.

Praise from Trump? Was Sylvan Lane smoking crack when he wrote that? And where were his editors? Smoking crack with him? Trump isn't going to be praising Tester, Donnelly or Heitkamp before the election. This morning the NY Times reported that Trump "is planning to focus his midterm campaigning this summer on red states with competitive Senate races where he has a deep reservoir of support and can bring a message devised to stoke partisan outrage. The strategy is intended to take advantage of his star power among core Republican supporters while minimizing his exposure in states with competitive congressional races where his polarizing presence could help motivate Democrats as well as independents and moderate Republicans." Perhaps they should be hoping they get praise from Bernie.

It remains to be seen whether scaling back rules on banks will help the Democratic candidates win Republican votes, but polling indicates it could work.

Close to 70 percent of Republicans polled by Gallup in November said there is too much federal regulation of businesses, compared to 20 percent of Democrats.

A July study from Pew also showed a 13-point gap in the share of Republicans (46 percent) and Democrats (33 percent) who said banks and financial institutions have a positive impact on the U.S.

The American Bankers Association (ABA), a top U.S. bank lobbying group, has sought to aid Democrats who’ve supported efforts to roll back Dodd-Frank. The group spent $100,000 on TV ads in Montana featuring bankers praising Tester for his work on loosening bank rules.

“The release of these positive television ads represents another step in ABA’s advocacy for our members,” said ABA press secretary Ian McKendry. “We will be supporting candidates in both parties who have advocated for policies that will help banks better serve their customers and communities.”

But other campaign veterans doubt that the senators’ support for the law will be a difference-maker in November.

Stuart Roy, a GOP strategist and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Cocaine Mitch (R-KY), said “endangered Democrats will find this vote as helpful as a parachute that opens after the second bounce.”

“Voters barely remember big legislation,” Roy said, calling the bill “not even a fraction” of the importance of the main issues driving voters to the polls.

Roy also said Democrats could risk suppressing their base by touting efforts to scrap regulations.

A February poll commissioned by Americans for Financial Reform, a nonprofit supporting tough bank laws, found that only 17 percent of voters support loosening regulations on the biggest firms impacted by the bipartisan bill.

The survey, conducted by left-leaning Public Policy Polling, also found that 59 percent of voters support Dodd-Frank, and only 25 percent believe it went too far in regulating banks.

The former Democratic strategist said Democratic support for the Dodd-Frank bill is mainly useful as a way to keep financial sector super PACs and bank lobbyists from supporting their Republican opponents.

“It allows them to try to keep industry from donating to their opponent,” the strategist said. “But in terms of winning voters, it’s a losing issue for everybody.”

This kind of blatant anti-populism is going to cost Heitkamp, Donnelly and Tester dearly in November. They should have followed Manchin, who was smart enough to vote for the grassroots on this one. And I bet Democrats and independents agree with Elizabeth Warren on this one, not Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly or Jon Tester... or Donald Trump.

Related-- very related: Despite the DCCC urging Democratic candidates to keep at arm's length from Medicare-for-All, it's the candidates who are ignoring their bad advice who are doing the best. The DCCC is incapable of learning that lesson though, even if they weep bitterly as their shit candidates-- like Jay Hulings (TX), Brad Ashford (NE) and Jim Gray (KY) are flushed down the electoral toilet. Jake Johnson for Common Dreams:

With Medicare for All reaching record levels of support among both members of Congress and the American public—where support for single-payer is spreading "like wildfire"-- policy platforms demanding that the U.S. ditch its wasteful and deeply immoral for-profit system in favor of guaranteed healthcare for every American are also proving to be winners in Democratic primary fights across the country.

In red and blue states alike, candidates backing Medicare for All have emerged victorious in Democratic primary battles where, in some cases, their opponents had the backing of the party establishment.

...Further demonstrating the American public's hunger for a system that guarantees healthcare as a right regardless of one's ability to pay, a town hall hosted by Sanders and other Medicare for All advocates earlier this year drew 1.6 million viewers despite a complete blackout by the corporate media.

"It ain't gonna be on CBS. It ain't gonna be on NBC. What astounds me is we already have a pretty good majority of the American people who already believe in universal healthcare, believe that it is the government's responsibility to make sure that health care is a right," Sanders said. "And we have reached that stage with media not talking about the issue at all."

"Together we will successfully move the United States to a Medicare-for-All, single-payer healthcare system and guarantee healthcare to all," Sanders concluded.

Trump Tries Smearing Tester

Señor Trumpanzee has never been one for nuance, so when Putin's moron disguised as a president tweeted to his equality stupid supporters that Jon Tester should resign... well what more could anyone expect. He's un-nuanced and he's a more... but he has an instinct for savagery... and he senses what he perceives as blood in the water. He was bellowing on Saturday morning that the "great people of Montana will not stand for this kind of slander when talking of a great human being. Admiral Jackson is the kind of man that those in Montana would most respect and admire, and now, for no reason whatsoever, his reputation has been shattered."

So why doesn't Trumpanzee renominate him to be head of the Veterans' Administration? Sam Stein made the same argument:

Johnny Isakson of Georgia is chairman of the veterans’ affairs committee and a pretty right wing Republican. On Saturday, while Trump was smearing Tester and demanding he resign, Isakson was voicing support for Tester. Trump won Montana 279,240 (56.2%) to 177,709% (35.7%). In 2012 Tester was barely reelected-- 236,123 (48.6%) to 218,051 (44.6%) against Republican Denny Rehberg. He originally defeated Republican incumbent Conrad Burns in 2006 even more narrowly, 198,302 votes (49%) to 195,455 (48%). Trump's goal Saturday was to fire up the Republican base in Montana so they would come out and vote against Tester in November.

In fact, right-wing groups allied with Trump have already been smearing Tester with misleading ads, like this one:



Isakson may or may not have found out that Trump was spreading his poison by tweet when his office said he didn't have a problem with how Tester had handled the Ronny Jackson affair.

“Senator Isakson has a great relationship with Senator Tester,” a spokeswoman for Isakson told CNN following Trump's tweets on Saturday. “He doesn’t have a problem with how things were handled. I don’t know for sure but highly doubt he’s seen the president’s tweets this morning.”

Tester’s staff compiled a report on the allegations against Jackson, which cited claims made by more than 20 people, including an accusation that Jackson "wrecked" a government vehicle after becoming intoxicated at a Secret Service going-away party, and a claim that he drunkenly banged on the hotel door of a female staffer during an official overseas trip during the Obama administration.

Trump, of course, is trying to imply the allegations against Jackson were made by Tester. They weren't-- and Tester made that clear at every point. They testimony against Johnson were made by men and women who worked under him and they were being investigated by the committee. "Tester, against Trump's criticism and backlash from other GOP lawmakers, has maintained that his actions are 'not political.' ...I am focused on making sure that we have the best person possible to run the VA,' he told Politico. 'It’s a very, very important agency.'"

Tough Love For The DCCC

Ever since Rahm Emanuel was handed the reins of the DCCC-- the beginning of Pelosi's downfall as a force for good-- this blog has spent a good deal of time exploring what's wrong with that organization. In the last few weeks the eruptions have been so frequent and vitriolic that DCCC-connected congressmen and staffers have been asking me to cool it and one even called a friend of mine and asked him what they had to do to stop. My friend was savvy enough to tell them if they stop the crap, like what they've been doing to Laura Moser and Levi Tillemann, to mention just two-- I'd have nothing to denounce them for. (Sure, sure...)

But don't get the wrong idea... the Republican dirty tricks are, at best, just as bad. In fact, the DCCC staffers don't have the brain power to think up their own dirty tricks and have been using the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove playbook to come up with how to savage progressives. But... the Republicans: horrible. I recall how Debbie Wasserman Schultz used to deploy this one when she was trying to sabotage the Democratic Party's efforts to dislodge her amiga, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Matt Volz reported on how the Republicans are employing it this cycle in their fervor to defeat centrist Montana Democrat Jon Tester from the Senate.On Monday Timothy Adams filed to run as the Green candidate in the Senate race that pits Tester against... well either Troy Downing, Matt Rosendale or Russ Fagg. Adams registered as a Green, which qualified as a political party in Montana 3 days ago, but he's was an employee of the state Republican Party’s-- on their payroll-- from 2013 to 2015. The GOP is clearly using Adams to siphon votes from Tester. He also heads an anti-tax "group," Montanans Against Higher Taxes. (Montanans Against Higher Taxes is a new legal entity formed to oppose a legislative referendum on the ballot this fall for a 10-year property tax extension for the state’s university system.)

15 year old me in the middle

Maybe I don't spend as much time attacking the NRCC, NSCC and RNC as I spend on the DCCC, DSCC and DNC because I don't give a damn about the Republicans and don't care if they reform themselves or not. I was born a Democrat, made it onto the front page of the New York Post with a sign about Brooklyn liking LBJ at the Atlantic City Democratic convention in 1964 (yep, above; I was 15), worked as an elevator operator for Bobby Kennedy when he was running for the Senate that same year, and was president of my college's Young Democrats the following year. I rode a horse into Kabul from the mountains once so as not to miss a chance to vote in a midterm election at the embassy. Yeah, it's tough love-- albeit no love at all for Blue Dogs, New Dems and others from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- like Brad Ashford in Omaha. We haven't held his feet to the fire for a while. This story below was written by one of his "ex"-staffers.

The gloves are off in the Democrats’ Omaha House race, well at least one set of gloves.

As Kara Eastman picks up the backing of the progressive “Blue America” group she has some choice words for her opponent, former Congressman Brad Ashford.

• (Ashford’s) taken contradictory stands on almost every important issue over his long political career.

• People in the district tell me they are unhappy with Ashford’s voting record.

And then there was this:

• They also feel like he is not in it to win it.

Now, Ashford, the handpicked candidate of the whole Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the Blue Dogs, New Dems and DCCC (EMILY's List is staying out of this one, for obvious reasons.) All he ever talks about is how he can work with the Republicans. No kidding! Why is the DCCC backing him? For the exact same reasons they're backing, another wretched Blue Dog, Dan Lipinski, in Illinois.

The Man Who Gave The House To The GOP Is Tasked With Basically Doing The Same For The Senate In 2018

I have to give credit to Schumer for firing the spectacularly failed DSCC chairman, his 2016 sock-puppet Jon Tester. I can't remember the DSCC ever doing worse in terms of money spent compared to contests lost. This should have been a cycle the Democrats won back the Senate and took at least 6 seats. Instead they won a measly two, New Hampshire and Illinois. These are the ones they lost and how much they spent (DSCC + Senate Majority PAC, not including allied groups):

• McGinty (PA)- $32,883,006
• Hassan (NH)- 29,048,374
• Ross (NC)- $16,142,247
• Bayh (IN) $13,723,677
• Strickland (OH)- $9,690,671
• Kander (MO)- $8,459,872
• Feingold (WI)- $4,668,343
• Murphy (FL)- $4,187,566

After inserting a disliked corporate shill, Patty Judge, into the Iowa race-- which might have been won by respected state Senator Rob Hogg had Schumer and Tester not interfered-- the DSCC immediately withdrew from Iowa leaving Grassley to clobber Judge. They spent a grand total of $577 on her. They also quickly withdrew from Arizona after recruiting conservative corporate shill Ann Kirkpatrick, having spent a total of $40,674. Having inserted conservative losers in Florida and Ohio, they stopped spending in those two states as well, leaving both of their hapless candidates to suffer ignominious defeats. Murphy only won 44.3% of the vote, considerably below Clinton's 47.8% and Strickland was the embarrassment of the cycle-- albeit completely predictable-- losing with just 36.9% of the vote, far under-performing Clinton's 43.5%. I can't say if Grayson would have beaten Rubio in Florida or Sittenfeld would have bested Portman in Ohio, but each would have done much better than the Schumercrat that was whisked through the primary. A Gravis poll recently showed that had Schumer not forced the tally flawed McGinty into the race, Joe Sestak would have won Pennsylvania.

Schumer was more at fault than Tester who was, basically, just a sad-sack order-taker. But he couldn't exactly hold himself accountable, so he just pushed Tester aside and announced Friday that the next DSCC head would be Maryland freshman Chris Van Hollen, best known for being the most dismally failed DCCC chairman in contemporary history. In the run-up to the 2010 congressional midterms, Van Hollen and his lieutenants told Democrats to play Republican-lite. And did they ever. A huge Democratic majority offered very little to ordinary voters and watered-down every piece of useful legislation progressives offered. These are the Democrats who Van Hollen and his DCCC enthusiastically encouraged to vote with the GOP... and who were abandoned by Democratic voters are got swamped in the midterms-- or sensed what was about to happen and retired first:

• Bobby Bright (AL)
• Marion Berry (AR)
• Vic Snyder (AR)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Harry Mitchell (AZ)
• John Salazar (CO)
• Betsy Markey (CO)
• Allen Boyd (FL)
• Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
• Ron Klein (FL)
• Jim Marshall (GA)
• Walter Minnick (ID)
• Melissa Bean (IL)
• Debbie Halvoson (IL)
• Bill Foster (IL)
• Baron Hill (IN)
• Dennis Moore (KS)
• Frank Kratovil (MD)
• Bart Stupak (MI)
• Travis Childers (MS)
• Gene Taylor (MS)
• Ike Skelton (MO)
• John Adler (NJ)
• Harry Teague (NM)
• Michael McMahon (NY)
• Scott Murphy (NY)
• Mike Acuri (NY)
• Dan Maffei (NY)
• Bob Etheridge (NC)
• Earl Pomeroy (ND)
• Steve Driehaus (OH)
• Charlie Wilson (OH)
• John Boccieri (OH)
• Zack Space (OH)
• Kathy Dahlkemper (PA)
• Patrick Murphy (PA)
• Chris Carney (PA)
• Paul Kanjorski (PA)
• John Spratt (SC)
• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
• Lincoln Davis (TN)
• Bart Gordon (TN)
• John Tanner (TN)
• Glenn Nye (VA)
• Tom Periello (VA)
• Rick Boucher (VA)
• Brain Baird (WA)
• Alan Mollohan (WV)- lost primary

In all, Van Hollen lost an unprecedented 63 House seats on that election day-- far more than those conservatives listed above. There's been a redistricting since then so it's hard to be precise about this but only 3 of those 47 districts Van Hollen lost are back in Democratic hands today. So when Schumer told the media that "Chris Van Hollen was our first choice for DSCC chairman because of his talents, his work ethic, and his experience," people has to stifle an impulse to laugh out loud. "He has the confidence of our caucus and will do a great job for our candidates running in 2018," Schumer continued while his caucus collectively shuddered. "The map is tough for Democrats, but I have no doubt that Senator-elect Van Hollen is up to the task." He's not-- and vulnerable Democrats like Claire McCaskill (MO), Joe Donnelly (IN), Tammy Baldwin (OH), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Bob Casey (PA), Bill Nelson (FL), Debbie Stabenow (MI) and Sherrod Brown (OH) probably realize that. One of the top Senate staffers who I asked if he thought Schumer was on psychedelic drugs when he made the announcement answered this way:

Van Hollen in 2010: "Yes, we lost 63 seats, but at least we didn’t lose 106."

Van Hollen in 2018: "Yes, we lost 10 seats, but at least we didn’t lose 106.  Oh, wait, we only had 48 to start with.  Make that 48."

How Chuck Schumer And Jon Tester Screwed Up The Democrats' Best Shot To Succeed In The Senate

Because of the seats that are up in 2016, it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Democrats would take back the Senate regardless of the top of the ticket. Trump just makes GOP defense more difficult. Unfortunately, because of the seats that are up in 2018, it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Republicans will take back the Senate. In 2018, battlegrounds will be Democratic-held seats in red and purple states-- Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, Florida, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania-- plus New Jersey, where Bob Menendez's corruption case will be coming to a head. So... the job for the DSCC this year wasn't just to win back a measly 3 or 4 seats to take back a bare majority, but to bank a bunch seats in preparation for a horrible 2018. Largely because of Chuck Schumer's philosophy that Democratic primary voters are too stupid to pick their own nominees, the DSCC has failed miserably already. I'll explain in a minute. First a little background on the head of the DSCC, Schumer sock-puppet Jon Tester.

I went to the same high school as Chuck Schumer, James Madison, in the early 1960s. He was just the same way he is now and not many people liked him. But I never met anyone who really hated him as much as Jon Tester did in 2006. At the time, Tester was a populist organic farmer and state legislator and he was one of the first Senate candidates who Blue America had ever endorsed. Schumer himself was the head of the DSCC and he recruited some Wall Street hack, John Morrison, the state Auditor, and the very wealthy former president of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association, He outspent Tester's grassroots campaign two to one-- and was being pushed by Schumer without regard to party rules about not interfering in primaries. At least once a week, Tester would call me and curse Schumer to high heaven. Fueled by hatred for Schumer, Tester slaughtered Schumer's puppet candidate in a massive 61-35% landslide and then went on to beat Republican incumbent Conrad Burns. It didn't take a week before Tester completely sold out to Schumer and became one of his minions. It's how things tend to work in Washington. I was stunned and sickened. Today Tester is a Schumer lap-dog and his rubber-stamp head of the DSCC.

New polling shows two of the most wretched of the candidates Schumer-- with help from Tester-- backed in the primary, poor old Ted Strickland and former fracking lobbyist Katie McGinty-- are failing miserably in races where PJ Sittenfeld and Joe Sestak would probably be trouncing Rob Portman and Pat Toomey now. In fact, Portman is crushing Strickland so decisively-- something that we predicted all of last year-- that the Senate Majority PAC, also controlled by Schumer, just "postponed" wasting $191,000 on Strickland TV spots.

Yesterday, Schumer's expenditure of several million dollars and a campaign of lies and innuendo against Alan Grayson paid off-- for Marco Rubio. Rubio, a weak and damaged incumbent, would have never been able to stand up to Grayson for two seconds. But in his rush to get talentless Wall Street pet Patrick Murphy the nomination, Schumer has all but guaranteed Rubio his unearned and undeserved reelection. First thing this morning, Rubio challenged the hapless Murphy to 6 debates. Murphy doesn't know how to debate and is probably hoping Schumer will think up some excuse for him. The race in Florida will be one where there is not even a lesser of two evils!

Even the most optimistic of the journalists who always buys into the most pathetic DSCC spin, Chuck Todd, predicts a miserable November performance: wins in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana, which would give the Democrats bare control with the help of Vice President Kaine. That would be an easily thwartable majority, especially with Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, Tester and Joe Donnelly-- all petrified of 2018 defeat-- voting regularly across the aisle, probably with Evan Bayh. And then along comes 2018 and that's the end of any chance Hillary will have to accomplish anything at all that isn't on the GOP agenda.

Todd gives the Democrats a shot to win in 3 states if Hillary has big enough coattails: New Hampshire, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. I think New Hampshire is the most likely. He claims if every Greek god takes part in a concerted effort on behalf of the Democrats, the conservatives Schumer picked for Arizona, Florida, Missouri and Ohio could win too, but none of those are likely all I'm betting Mt. Olympus has other things on its plate right now. "So you if you're the Democrats," Todd adds, "you can realistically get to four pickups and control of the Senate, if Clinton wins the presidential race. But Nevada is key here, because a GOP win means Democrats will have to win another seat to win control." Chuck Schumer is about to be elected Democratic Senate leader, probably unanimously, by a Senate Democratic caucus that doesn't deserve anything better than what's coming its way.

Democratic Party Unity, The NRA, The DCCC And Mary Ellen Balchunis

As we mentioned yesterday, the head of the DSCC, Jon Tester, was one of 3 Democrats-- the other two being NRA shills Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin-- to have crossed the aisle and voted with the Republicans to defeat an amendment by Chris Murphy that aimed to expand background checks on gun sales to include sales at gun shows and on the Internet. The Senate also failed to pass a proposal to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists, a huge victory for gun manufacturing lobbyists, who have spent $1,776,541 this cycle so far, bribing legislators ($1,732,800 have gone to Republicans and $43,741 to right-wing Democrats). The dozen biggest recipients of gun industry bribes so far in the cycle:

• Ted Cruz (R-TX)- $159,856
• Rand Paul (R-KY)- $70,531
• Marco Rubio (R-FL)- $44,480
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $34,000
• Ron Johnson (R-WI)- $33,925
• Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)- $28,295
• Joe Heck (R-NV)- $22,550
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $22,205
• Ryan Zinke (R-MT)- $21,613
• Martha McSally (R-AZ)- $19,576
• John McCain (R-AZ)- $19,500
• Richard Burr (R-NC)- $19,300

Both Heitkamp and Manchin have accepted gun-maker blood money this cycle-- as has Ben Ray Lujan, head of the DCCC.

I might mention at this point that Lujan identified PA-07 in the Philly suburbs as a must-win district if the Democrats are to have even a remote shot of winning back the House in an anti-Trump tsumnai. Lujan, in fact, helped recruit some guy to run against the progressive grassroots candidate in the district and Lujan and his DCCC cronies gifted him with Red-to-Blue status, helped him raise money and worked ferociously the prevent the grassroots candidate, Mary Ellen Balchunis, from raising any money. The nonentity Lujan recruited outspent Mary Ellen $239,391 to $45,541 but she kicked his worthless ass-- and that of his DCCC enablers 74-26%. At which time Lujan and Nancy "when women win" Pelosi removed PA-07 from the DCCC target list and from their Red to Blue page and signaled Republican Pat Meehan that as far as they were concerned, the district is his for the next two years.

Last week, after the slaughter in Orlando, Mary Ellen told her supporters that "Meehan and the House of Representatives did nothing to help stop the senseless violence" and she called on him "to stand up and have the courage to lead on the issue of common sense gun legislation. I challenge Congressman Pat Meehan to co-sponsor the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015-- H.R. 4269. Meehan voted against this legislation in 2015. This legislation would have saved lives. Instead, last week, Pat Meehan doubled down on his refusal to support the legislation." She continued:

If H.R. 4269 had passed, according to its sponsor, U.S. Rep. David N. Cicilline, ". . . then Orlando gunman Omar Mateen would not have been able to buy the rifle he used in the attack. (Authorities say Mateen used a Sig Sauer MCX rifle.) Mateen would have been able to buy another type of gun, but the attack might not have been as lethal if he wasn't able to purchase a weapon "used on the battlefield to kill as may people as possible."

The victims and their loved ones in Orlando and all gun tragedies deserve our prayers, but they also deserve action. Congressman Meehan's failure to act to support the Assault Weapons Ban in the wake of this tragedy is simply unacceptable.  His position defies common sense and displays a woeful lack of courage and leadership.

Furthermore, I am challenging Pat Meehan to affirmatively tell the people of the 7th District that he will support legislation that takes the following actions.

• Prevent people being investigated by the FBI or on the No Fly List from buying firearms, known as "No-Fly, No Buy" legislation.
• Stop the sale of military style assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips.
• Close the gun show loophole by making background checks mandatory for all people looking to buy a gun.
• Keep guns out of the hands of those convicted of hate crimes.

Pat Meehan won't take action to make our streets safe, but I will. These assault weapons are made to hunt only one thing - people-- and they should be taken off the streets. There is talk and there is action. The only action we are seeing is from the people who are killing innocents. Meanwhile, Pat Meehan and Congress sit on their hands. They are responsible for making laws-- laws that keep us safe. They are failing to do that. Pat Meehan needs to do his job or resign.

According to the Washington Post, out of the 18 congressmen in Pennsylvania, Pat Meehan receives the fourth amount of money from the National Rifle Association.

I was a Million Mom Marcher in 2000 and have long been a advocate for sensible gun reform. At the Million Mom March, one of the best banners there said "Tell Congress To Stop Taking Bribes From The NRA." It is even more important today. Campaign contributions should never take precedence over the lives of individuals. These are common sense solutions to help prevent gun violence. I challenge Pat Meehan to take vital steps including calling for a discharge petition to get these bills out of committee and on the floor for a vote.  And then pass this smart and common sense legislation to prevent violence.

Pretty strong for a Democratic Party congressional candidate-- and Pelosi and gun lobbyist bribe taker Lujan continue to refuse to get behind Mary Ellen's campaign for the PA-07 congressional seat.

After the votes Monday, Mary Ellen wrote "I will never take a penny from the NRA. Because of that, they will go to war to against me... Meehan stands with the NRA-- not the people of the 7th District... [T]he U.S. Senate turned a blind eye to the majority of Americans who want common sense laws to stop gun violence. Once again, Washington has failed us. Congress refused to stand up to the NRA bullies and take action to keep our streets safe.  No matter how many tragedies, those in Washington can't seem to get their priorities in order."

So why is the DCCC, controlled by Pelosi and run by Steve Israel and Ben Ray Lujan siding with Pat Meehan in PA-07. Were their feelings hurt when grassroots Democrats in the district defeated their handpicked recruit-- hurt enough to give up on a winnable-- must-win-- seat? Mary Ellen, who identifies as a member of the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party, has a personal relationship with Hillary Clinton, who she admires and who she endorsed and worked for during the Pennsylvania primary. Now Pelosi and Lujan and Israel and whining every day about Democratic Party unity in the face of Trump. OK, but is that a one way street? Mary Ellen won the primary-- by a massive landslide. Why does the DCCC continue to refuse to help her and continue a policy of telling Democratic donors to not fund her campaign? Can you step up for Mary Ellen by clicking the thermometer?

Gun Nut DSCC Chairman Jon Tester Goes To War-- Against Alan Grayson

Jon Tester, the disappointing senator from Montana and Schumer's puppet chairman of the DSCC, had a busy Monday. He voted with the Republicans-- as he often does-- against the bill to pass meaningful background checks for gun purchases. That's the HEAD of the DSCC. AND, he authorized a million dollar spend against Alan Grayson in the Florida Senate primary-- a spend meant to help elect Wall Street whore Patrick Murphy. (I remember when Tester used to whime to me on the phone every day about how Chuck Schumer was working to defeat him in his first Senate race, on behalf of a Wall Street shill not even as bad as Murphy, John Morrison. Tester sold out within microseconds of winning his primary, morphing into Morrison and becoming Schumer's lap dog, giving New York a third vote in the Senate.



Judging by the disclaimer in the ad above, which has Murphy approving it with a "paid for by the DSCC" disclaimed, this shows Tester and Schumer spending 441a(d) money, which is party money that is spent in coordination with the candidate.  There is a limit on that money in each election cycle.  If you spend it in the primary, you can’t spend it in the general election.  The only time that I’ve ever heard of the DSCC wasting this money during the primary before this year was when they ineffectively wasted money on "ex"-Republican Arlen Specter to harm Joe Sestak in 2010. Sestak won the primary anyway but the DSCC had no money left they could spend on helping him beat Pat Toomey, who won the general election by the narrowest margin of any Republican running for Senate that November. Now Tester and Schumer won't have money to spend against Rubio in November.

That money spent against Sestak in 2010 also featured Obama claiming Specter was a better candidate than the independent-minded Sestak. This nonsensical ad with Obama's voice claims Murphy has had his back in the House. The only thing Murphy did with Obama's back in the House was to stick knives in it. He was one of only a tiny handful of Democrats (all from the New Dem Republican wing of the party) to have not just voted for the Keystone XL Pipeline every time it came up but to vote for the disgraceful and unconstitutional GOP scheme to remove Obama from the decision-making process! Is that having his back? Grayson, coincidentally, was the congressman who began court proceedings to defend Obama's authority in the matter!

But that was just one of scores of examples of Murphy stabbing Obama in the back. Can you imagine a Democrat voting with the Republicans to establish the Benghazi witch hunt against Hillary Clinton? That was Patrick Murphy. The only other Democrats still in the House who voted for the establishment of the Benghazi Committee are two ultra-reactionary Blue Dogs, Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Collin Peterson (MN)-- just those two proto-Republicans and Murphy.

And then there's Obama's back in terms of Dodd-Frank. There is no House Democrat who's worked more diligently-- if not all that effectively, given his lack of talent-- on behalf of the banksters than Patrick Murphy. He is the go-to chump among House Financial Services Committee memberswhen they need a patsy to make their pro-bankster legislation appear "bipartisan" by adding a Democratic schnook as a co-sponsor. Ironically, it wasn't #DebtTrapDebbie Wasserman Schultz who co-sponsored the pay day lending scheme, it was Patrick Murphy, who has taken more money from the payday lenders than anyone else running for the Senate. In fact-- at $1,413,950 and counting-- Murphy has taken more money this cycle from the Finance Sector than any non-incumbent running for the Senate. The banksters have given him more loot than they've given to vulnerable Republican incumbents who have beens erving their interests in the Senate already, like Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Burr (R-NC), John McCain (R-AZ) and Roy Blunt (R-MO)-- and nearly double what they;ve given any other non-incumbent from either party.

Wall Street sure wants Patrick Murphy in the Senate. And so does the powerful billionaire Al-Rashid family of Saudi Arabia, which has helped Murphy's father finance little Patrick's political career (and spot on the House Intelligence Committee). Papa Al-Rashid, one of the Saudi king's top advisors, donated over a million dollars to the Clinton Library and is giving even more to the Obama Library. A Joe Biden staffer, who has asked for anonymity, has also told us that Obama cut the spot for Murphy in return for a promise from Patrick's crooked parents to "help" with the presidential library. Nice... maybe that's what Obama meant by Patrick having his back!

On more thing... in 2013, the Shark Tank reported that "Boehner granted Patrick Murphy’s request to a private meeting to discuss Murphy’s possible defecting to the Republican Party" and then turned down his conditions and told him to stay with the Democratic Party. Help Grayson fight back against this Republican masquerading as a Democrat:

Can Alan Grayson Keep Ted Cruz Out Of The White House?

Does this schmuck from New York pick Florida's senators?

De facto DCCC chair Steve Israel is contemptible and utterly worthless. Chuck Schumer, incoming Democratic Senate Leader is also contemptible and utterly worthless but because Israel is as dumb as a brick and Schumer is anything but, Schumer is far more dangerous. Once the entire Senate Democratic caucus played down and kissed his ring, Schumer immediately moved to affirm control over the schmuck from Montana ostensibly running the DSCC. The DSCC, which tried, under then chairman Little Chucky Schmucky, to sabotage Tester's candidacy when he first ran for the Senate in 2006 against one of Schumer's Wall Street shills, John Morrison. We loved the fiery, populist Tester back then and Tester detested Schumer-- with a passion. He changed quickly-- really quickly.

A few months after he beat Schumer's primary candidate and then the Republican incumbent, and was sworn in as a United States Senator, I had dinner with Tester. At the time, I wrote that "back in 2006 Tester was the populist underdog in the Democratic primary race to the DSCC's anointed candidate, State Auditor John Morrison, a DLC hack. Blue America endorsed him and raised money for him from 900 of our members; he beat Morrison and went on to beat the very corrupt and entrenched reactionary incumbent, Conrad Burns. The ostensible raison de etre for the get together was so Tester could raise some money for his new leadership PAC. He wants to support Democratic candidates running for the Senate. Admirable goal. I asked him a question though. Would he be using his PAC to help real Democrats-- populists and progressives like himself-- or if he'd be using it to support any ole generic Democrat like John Morrison, the DLC hack the Establishment ran against him?"

I pointed out Oklahoma state Senator Andrew Rice, then running for U.S. Senate against far right lunatic Jim Inhofe, as an example of someone who I found very much like Tester in so many ways. Tester didn't address the part of the question that draws a distinction between good Democrats and bad Democrats but said he was following Rice's campaign and that if it looked like he had a real shot to win, he'd be there to help! He never helped Rice and Rice didn't win and Tester got progressively worse as a senator month by month. By the time he became chair of the DSCC, there was absolutely nothing to distinguish him in any way from the Wall Street shill he beat in the 2006 primary.

Tester and Schumer do little else now besides undercutting Alan Grayson's Senate campaign on behalf of a worse Wall Street shill than John Morrison ever was, Patrick Murphy. I'm confident, though, that Florida voters-- despite Schumer and Tester-- know the difference between a real Democrat like Grayson and one who barely even tries to be one, like Murphy. Schumer has been working the phones like a madman, calling Grayson's donors and telling them not to help fund his campaign. If Grayson, who was the most effective member of the House this year, is to beat Murphy, who was one of the least effect, he's going to need to stay competitive financially. So I want to ask DWT readers to give to Grayson's campaign. Why should you? We've been writing about how he fights for peace, fights for justice, battle for seniors and the less fortunate for a full decade. But how about this? Grayson had pledged that if the Republican Party tries putting Ted Cruz up as their nominee for president, he will sue on constitutional grounds since Cruz admits he was born in Canada. Born in Canada= not constitutionally eligible to be president of the United States. Schumer isn't suing, Tester isn't suing, Murphy isn't suing. Their heads are so far up Wall Street's ass that none of them are aware that Cruz is even in position to win the GOP primary.

Grayson was a guest on the Alan Colmes Show on Wednesday. When Colmes asked him what he thought about Cruz coming polling ahead of Dr. Ben in Iowa, Grayson mentioned that the Republican primary race has "resolved itself into this weird reality show. It’s not 'The Biggest Loser' that they’re choosing, it’s 'The Biggest Bigot,' which quickly led to a discussion of Cruz's qualifications to be president.

GRAYSON: I don’t know, the Constitution says natural born Americans, so now we’re counting Canadians as natural born Americans? How does that work? I’m waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job because he’s in eligible.

COLMES: So you’re saying should he get the nomination, Alan Grayson will file a lawsuit against his candidacy.

GRAYSON: Absolutely! Call me crazy but I think the President of America should be an American.

Although the Supreme Court has never ruled on it, the Constitution states plainly that "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." Like many Americans, Grayson says "It’s interesting to me that the people who had a problem with Obama’s birth certificate don’t have a problem with Ted Cruz, who literally was born in another country and renounced his Canadian citizenry." Cruz waited until this year when he decided to run for the presidency to renounce his Canadian citizenship. Dullish media lackeys of the political establishment will, of course, mock and attack Grayson, but this is a serious matter for people who actually believe in the Constitution. Meanwhile please consider helping save the country and the Democratic Party from the likes of Chuck Schumer. Here's how, the only hope I see on the horizon (other than a Bernie Sanders primary win, of course).