11 Points Is Very Big

 

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of registered voters shows Trump losing in a 53% to 42% election-- an 11 point deficit. That's a lot. In the 1968 presidential election, the first time I was allowed to vote, Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey by seven-tenths of a point, about half a million votes. Carter beat Ford by 2 points. Four years later, Reagan's landslide win over Carter was 9.7 points. Clinton beat George HW Bush by 5.6 points and then beat ole Bob Dole by 8.5 points. Gore actually beat George W Bush 50,999,897 (48.4%) to 50,456,002 (47.9%) but the Republican Supreme Court blatantly stole the election for Bush. Four years later, Bush beat Kerry by 2.4 points. In 2008 Obama beat McCain by 7.2 points and then beat Romney by 3.9 points in 2012. Hillary beat Trump 65,853,514 (48.2%) to 62,984,828 (46.1%) but was denied the presidency because of the purposely anti-democratic electoral college (which should have been abolished long ago-- and would have been if it ever worked against a Republican or if the Democratic Party ever grew a pair).





Wall Street Journal reporter Eliza Collins wrote that "The poll holds warning signs for Republicans down-ballot, as well. Democrats came out ahead of Republicans by 8 points when voters were asked which party they planned to support for Congress... Biden continues to gain with groups that backed Mr. Trump in 2016, such as seniors and white women. At the same time, Mr. Trump’s lead has weakened among some core parts of his base, including white men without college degrees. A majority of voters are unhappy with the president’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Some 41% approve of his handling of Covid-19 in the latest poll, compared with 57% who disapprove."

Even in states where a statewide loss is not likely for Trump, his unpopularity in suburban districts is going to kill his GOP enablers from coast to coast. It's what the silly Beltway prognosticators-- including at the DCCC-- don't understand about a wave. Even the very worst and least-deserving-of-reelection Democrats, like Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (NY), Kendra Horn (OK), Joe Cunningham (SC), Ben McAdams (UT) and Abigail Spanberger (VA), are all probably going to be reelected because of widespread antipathy towards Trump and his lackeys.

Progressive challengers in deep red districts who the DCCC wrote off early in the cycle, are now on the verge of defeating powerful entrenched Republican incumbents-- and some have even been embraced, albeit reluctantly, by the DCCC! Look at these 7 candidates. All are running in prohibitively red districts gerrymandered to elect Republicans; all were entirely ignored by the Democratic establishment; all are in districts where Trump's support is collapsing; and all are pulling even or surpassing their Republican opponents. These are the candidates whose campaigns we should be pouring resources into right now:

• Adam Christiansen (FL-03) R+9
• Audrey Denney (CA-01) R+11
• Nate McMurray (NY-27) R+11
• Julie Oliver (TX-25) R+11
• Liam O'Mara (CA-42) R+9
• J.D. Scholten (IA-04) R+11
• Mike Siegel (TX-10) R+9

7 races with an average PVI of about R+10... all once considered out of reach and absolutely impossible, but all now very much within reach and very much possible and worth investing in. For example, Julie Oliver's "impossible race" has now been endorsed by the DCCC, which is starting to get excited about seeing her replace one of the most vile of the Trump enablers in the House. "Everyone knows big money and the ultra-wealthy have too much power in Washington," Julie told me this morning, "and I’m a political outsider who has refused all PAC money and isn’t afraid to stand up to corrupt special interests and leaders in both parties. We need to end the culture of corruption in Washington, and Roger Williams has shown a disturbing pattern of unethical behavior-- whether it’s being investigated for amending a bill to support car dealerships by letting them rent out dangerous vehicles under active safety recall, cutting to the front of the line to take millions in bailouts for his car dealership while Texas small business owners lost everything and voting to keep that hidden from the public, or abusing his position to make backroom deals on behalf big money donors."

Progressive Democrat J.D. Scholten is running a campaign in Iowa based on the same kinds of ideas. Last night he told me that "All farmers can agree that we need to enforce our antitrust laws in agriculture because right now corporations are controlling the inputs, outputs, and choices for farmers. In my first year in Congress, my goal is to introduce legislation to modernize the Packers and Stockyards Act, level the playing field for farmers, and hold corporations accountable. Meanwhile, my opponent takes corporate PAC donations from Tyson, Smithfield, and Syngenta-- the very corporations that are helping to push farmers off the farm and into bankruptcy. My strong, unwavering support for enforcing antitrust laws has earned me support from farmers across the political spectrum."

This morning California progressive Audrey Denney told me that she has "consistently been running on: 1) Forest health and fire prevention, 2) Truly universal healthcare and an emphasis on rural health, 3) COVID recovery and economic growth, 4) Rural broadband. All with the underlying theme of the essential need to get money out of politics and fire corrupt self-serving politicians. Our message is getting through to voters and we are going to win... Since we sent Rep. LaMalfa back to DC for his 4th term:

• He voted against HR 968 that would have protected people with pre-existing conditions.
• He voted against HR 3 that would have lowered prescription drug prices.
• He voted against HR 1 which among many other things, would have strengthened ethics rules for members of Congress.
• He voted against S47 wildly bipartisan public lands funding bill-- when half of his district is public lands.
• He voted against the HEROES Act twice-- even though besides desperately needed COVID relief it would have provided: $500 million for Safer Grants (Fire emergency response), $500 million for Fire Fighter Assistance grants, assistance to livestock producers (we are now losing 4th generation cattle ranches), money for rural hospitals, and rural broadband.

Mike And Julie, The Key To Winning Back Texas

 

Republicans have controlled Texas for too long and have grown comfortable enough to overlook arrogance and embrace corruption. It's time for them to be put out to pasture. Many Texas voters-- particularly in the suburbs and exurbs around Dallas-Ft Worth, Houston, Austin and San Antonio-- are sick of Trump and giving up on his enablers. And whether Biden wins the state's 38 electoral votes or not, Texas is likely to flip as many as half a dozen congressional seats and possibly the state House as well.

Today, as the election barrels towards a denouement, we want to focus on the two most important congressional candidates running in Texas, Mike Siegel (TX-10) and Julie Oliver (TX-25), each in a gerrymandered district carved out of Travis County (Austin) and meant to dilute the votes of Austin Democrats by including rural and suburban counties that were GOP safe zones when the districts were drawn. Those safe zones are no longer safe and both Siegel and Oliver made tremendous headway against the GOP incumbents in 2018. Each is back to finish the job in November.

And each is polling so strongly that a reluctant DCCC-- never eager to endorse outright progressives in "red" districts-- was forced to add both Siegel and Oliver to their Red to Blue list this month. This morning, Siegel told us how clearly he understands the stakes. "When I beat Michael McCaul on November 3," he said, "it will send shockwaves through the political establishment. I'm running hard on the Green New Deal, to create millions of jobs while addressing climate change and the legacy of environmental racism. And when I defeat one of the wealthiest members of Congress, a person who has more money personally invested in oil and gas than any person in the House or Senate, in a district specifically gerrymandered to protect him (because his father-in-law is a media empire billionaire), and in a district that contains numerous fossil fuel concerns in the Houston "oil patch"-- that victory will make history. It will help to dispel this idea that to flip a red seat you need to be 'moderate.' It will show that progressive policies like the Green New Deal are winning issues BECAUSE they are bold, because they meet the scale of the crises we face. This victory will be about more than one seat, it will be about the movement.





Siegel, a civil rights attorney and a life-long union guy, is all about solidarity. He was quick to turn the conversation towards his neighbor and fellow-progressive. "And the same goes for my compatriot Julie Oliver. She is probably the most articulate House challenger right now when it comes to Medicare for All. Because of her personal story and her family's struggles with health care companies, and also because of her work as a lawyer with intricate knowledge of health insurance and spending, she is the perfect advocate for a national, comprehensive, single-payer healthcare system. And her opponent is a caricature of a wealthy, bigoted, out-of-touch Texas Republican. Who would you rather have as a representative, a grifting car salesman or a healthcare advocate and mom who is unafraid to knock every door in her 13-county district, who has fought for Medicare for All even when it wasn't universally popular, and who continues to lead on the most important issue during a national health crisis? I'll take Julie, thank you very much!"

He concluded that "The two of us-- staunch progressives who have built powerful campaigns that are even winning support from the political establishment-- have the opportunity to change the narrative of Texas politics. We can help usher in a new wave of progressivism in the South. As Bernie's recent town hall said, 'As Texas goes, so does America.' So let's make that real-- and win in November!"

Please consider contributing what you can to both Mike Siegel and Julie Oliver by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Texas thermometer on the right. Julie told us that "As the mother of a kid with pre-existing conditions and as someone with 20 years of experience in the healthcare industry, I understand exactly how the healthcare industry has failed Texans, how we can fund it more equitably and responsibly, and how our own Republican members of Congress worked to undermine care for millions of Americans. Both Roger Williams and Mike's Republican opponent Michael McCaul have voted more than 50 times to take healthcare from millions of Americans, including cancer patients, sick children, the elderly, and people with disabilities right here in Texas. They've voted at least ten times to end protections for people with pre-existing conditions, like the one my son has. So for me--just as it is for hundreds of thousands of people here in our district whose healthcare is threatened by our own Congressman--this was deeply personal."

As much about solidarity as Siegel, she said that "both Mike and I believe that real change is never top-down-- it is built and informed by Texas communities. That is why both of us have run such organizing-first, grassroots campaigns, with an emphasis on coalition building, working in solidarity with communities that the political status quo has ignored for too long-- whether that's blue collar Texans who haven't seen a pay increase; those who are being priced out of their own communities due to the soaring costs of healthcare, tuition, and housing; or the communities in Texas most severely impacted by climate change. And the natural byproduct of actually showing up and listening to the people that Congress is supposed to serve-- not corporations, not DC elites-- is that we're rooting out corruption and ending the era of pay-for-play politics. Both Mike and I are political outsiders. I'm confident that neither of us can be arm-twisted behind closed doors, and we're not afraid to stand up to corrupt politicians and special interests. For too long, career politicians like Roger Williams and Michael McCaul have taken advantage of hardworking families while they use their office to enrich themselves. And it's time for real, positive change for Texas."





Last week, one of Texas' sharpest reporters, Abby Livingston, wrote that another Texas congressional candidate-- neither a real progressive nor a conservative but more of a moderate-- Wendy Davis, who was slaughtered in her 2014 in her high-profile run for governor, was thinking a lot about why she lost by 20 points but 4 years later Beto O'Rourke lost by just 2.5 points in his statewide race against Ted Cruz. Livingston wrote that Davis figured it out: in "2018 there was a robust lineup of Democratic candidates down ballot running for the U.S. House, the state Legislature and other local campaigns. That wasn’t the case in 2014. Those candidates knocked on doors, raised money, showed up to Rotary Club meetings and de-stigmatized Democrats in once-hostile territory. Some even won. Davis said those down-ballot races were key to O’Rourke’s performance." Beto agrees.

Livingston's point is that Biden's fate in Texas next month "could rest on the backs of dozens of mostly obscure Democratic candidates who are competing for legislative and congressional seats in the suburbs that have been strongly Republican... And with more national and local money pouring into those down-ballot races, political experts say that could have a major effect upstream on the ballot. 'Normally, House and down-ballot candidates are desperate for presidential investment,' said Amy Walter, a political analyst at the Cook Political Report. 'In this case, I think that all the money being poured into suburban [congressional districts] and battleground state [legislative] districts could help boost Biden.'"

Finally: Panic Washes Over GOP... But They Will Still Persist In Their Hateful And Unpopular Agenda

 

Republicans in Congress are preparing to triage Trump-- but not Amy Coney Island Baby. That's the hill they all seem happily willing to die on, a hill that symbolizes anti-Choice fanaticism, anti-healthcare mania, a pro-corporate and anti-regulatory extremism and, of course, the religious bigotry the GOP has wrapped itself in over the past two decades.

Republican Senators, Congress Members, state legislators, local officials, operatives and donors are all blaming Trump for their predicament. I hate Trump as much as anyone but if they want someone to blame for the tsunami headed their way, they should look in the mirror, not just to the White House. There was no time when they could not have said, "Wait, you are a fucking fascist and I am not and neither is my party." Too late for that now, though, because now their party is fascist and they have been enabling a fascist agenda-- eyes wide open.

The phrase on the lips of virtually all Beltway Republicans this month: "sinking ship," a way to describe the Trump reelection campaign, a battle being fought not in states Hillary won narrowly like New Hampshire, Virginia, Minnesota, Nevada and Maine but in states that were firmly in the Republican column way back then-- Arizona, Iowa, Georgia, Alaska, Ohio... even Texas.

And now, down-ballot Republicans are realizing-- too late-- they they are going down with that sinking ship. Some are even hoping to start showing their "independence" from Trump by breaking with his policies might help, after after their years of willing spineless subservience. Foolishly, they've chosen the wrong policy to break with. Trump, desperate to offer something to the voters, has ordered-- or re-ordered-- Mnuchin to work with Pelosi on a pandemic relief package that will include stimulus checks for struggling Americans (voters). For Mitch McConnell and his Senate colleagues that's a step too far. On Friday, Jonathan Swan and Alayna Treene reported for Axios that McConnell refuses to be tethered to Trump's growing desperation and that the president "has zero leverage to push them to support a bill crafted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and congressional Republicans aren’t inclined to wrap themselves any tighter to a sinking ship." McConnell's camp says "You’re never going to get a deal out of Pelosi that Republicans can support. So do you really want to divide your party within days of an election? This entire exercise from Pelosi is basically trying to jam up the Senate in the midst of a Supreme Court confirmation. They know that from a procedural standpoint McConnell can drive this train to conclusion, so what they’re trying do is throw as many roadblocks in the way as possible-- and the best way to do that is get the president focused on some extraneous issue." Swan and Treene concluded that even if Pelosi and Mnuchin were to strike a deal, "there is little chance the Senate GOP would get on board with it... Senate Republicans remain far apart on what they want as a conference. They also view Trump and Mnuchin as far more willing to give more to Pelosi than what they're comfortable with-- both numbers-wise and on policy." And to make matters worse, "McConnell doesn’t want to do anything to interrupt the only visible Republican win before the election in his chamber-- the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court."


Americans have been voting-- and in much biggest numbers than ever before this early. No one needs a debate. This is a referendum on Trump and his enablers. Biden is horrible. People don't care. The majority of the Democrats recruited by the DCCC are horrible-- as are all the Democrats recruited by Schumer. No one cares. (They will in 2022, but not now. Now they only care about Trump and those who allowed him to run amok.) In early voting reporting yesterday's NY Times, a trio of writers noted that early returns give Democrats a 10 point advantage among the 275,000 first-time voters nationwide who had already cast ballots and an 18-point lead among 1.1 million "sporadic voters" who had already voted.

As of Saturday, more than 8.8 million ballots had already been received by elections officials in the 30 states that have made data available. In five states-- including the battlegrounds of Wisconsin and Minnesota-- the number of ballots returned already is more than 20 percent of the entire 2016 turnout.

The L.A. Times headline was hardly unique: As Trump’s fortunes sink, Republicans start to distance themselves in bid to save Senate. Evan Halper wrote that as "Trump skids deeper into political peril, anxious Republicans have started to try to distance themselves from his fate, appealing to voters to elect them as a check on a Joe Biden administration. As they make closing arguments in a desperate bid to keep control of the Senate, even Trump loyalists are chafing when asked how deep their support for the president runs. Senate campaigns, which long focused on electing candidates who would be loyal to Trump, now pitch a darker message to Republican voters-- one that assumes Trump won’t be there. 'If we lose the Senate, there will be no firewall to stop the Democrats from implementing their Armageddon plan to pack the courts with activist judges and to add four new Democrats to the Senate by giving statehood to DC and Puerto Rico,' said a fundraising appeal from the Senate Conservative Fund."

Halper noted that McConnell, who has been "one of Trump’s most loyal lieutenants, abruptly jumped off the Trump train this week to stake out a politically-- and medically-- safer position on the coronavirus crisis that is Trump’s biggest political liability. McConnell said at a news conference Thursday in Kentucky that he had not been at the White House for more than a month because he did not think its safety standards were stringent enough. 'My impression was that their approach to how to handle this is different from mine and what I suggested that we do in the Senate, which is to wear a mask and practice social distancing,' said McConnell, who is 78 and in an expensive fight for reelection this year. Veteran Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, in his pitch for an endorsement from the Houston Chronicle, scolded Trump for downplaying the dangers of the coronavirus. The paper, which had endorsed Cornyn in the past, ultimately opted to support Democrat MJ Hegar."

“I think Trump might cause us a tidal wave,” said one top Republican strategist and Trump supporter, who asked not to be named discussing internal party matters. “He is ankle weights in a pool on Senate candidates.”

The move away from Trump resembles the strategy Republicans followed in 2016, when many party leaders assumed he would lose, and in 1996, when the party’s nominee, Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, badly trailed President Clinton.

In both cases, the approach was to avoid directly criticizing the nominee for fear of alienating his loyalists, while appealing to voters to keep a Republican Congress to deny Democrats a “blank check.”

...“A lot of Republicans are now having to walk this line where they don’t want be too critical of Trump and anger his base, but they need to reach out to moderates and independent,” said J. Miles Coleman, associate editor at the political forecasting journal Sabato’s Crystal Ball.

Yesterday, GOP lifer Ed Rollins, chair of Trump's Great America PAC, told CNN that the jig is up. "I'm afraid the race is over... What happened after the first presidential debate is every Senate race saw a 3- to 4-point drop for Republican candidates across the board. So campaigns are panicking and it’s the first time in a long while that they are being outraised. The potential is there to lose not only the presidency but the Senate as well… and to see the kind of wipeout we haven’t an experienced since the post-Watergate year of 1974." How could it can any worse for Trump. Well the Taliban could endorse him. Actually, they did.

NBC News reported that "some Republican operatives and donors" have given up on Trump's reelection and are "proposing that the party shift focus to protecting seats in Congress." Former NRCC staffer Ken Spain told NBC's Sahil Kapur that he sees "growing chances of a tsunami that drowns congressional Republican candidates," calling Trump's unpopularity "an anchor" for GOP candidates and worrying not about races in Colorado, Arizona and Maine-- that Republicans have given top on winning-- but in South Carolina, Georgia, Kansas and Alaska that they are in danger of losing.

Brendan Buck, a Republican consultant, who was a top adviser to former House Speaker Paul Ryan, said it would be a rational response to steer resources to saving endangered incumbents.

“We need to protect the Senate and limit the damage in the House,” he said. “They can’t say it out loud, but the president is likely toast, and a Republican Senate can serve as a check on a Biden administration and Democratic House. Republicans also need to keep the House in reach of flipping it back in 2022.”

If Republicans are struggling to protect an incumbent in the deep-red Palmetto State, it means the seat of Sen. John Cornyn in electoral vote-rich Texas may not necessarily be safe either, along with about a dozen others in a cycle in which Democrats need to pick up four seats to secure control, or three if they win the White House.

Biden’s campaign appears more bullish on Texas, purchasing $6.3 million in ads on TV and radio in the Lone Star State from Wednesday through Election Day, according to Advertising Analytics. His wife, Jill Biden, plans to travel to the state next week, the campaign announced Friday, with an itinerary a Biden campaign spokesperson said would include stops in Dallas, Houston and El Paso.

“Trump is definitely helping us,” Beto O’Rourke, a former Texas congressman and presidential candidate, told NBC News. “They have been neck and neck for weeks now, and Biden’s chances are only improving after his and Kamala (Harris)’s strong debate performances.”

O’Rourke, who came within 3 points of winning a Texas Senate race in 2018, insists the state and its 38 electoral votes are in play, and has been pleading with the Democrats to invest more there.

Democrats running for Republican-held congressional and state legislative seats are on the attack in Texas and closing in on Republican incumbents. Yesterday, Julie Oliver, progressive Democratic candidate running against crooked conservative Roger Williams in an R+ 11 district that the DCCC has completely ignored, told me that "We're in the middle of a pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Many of our kids' schools are still closed. Women are having to leave their jobs. We've lost millions of jobs. And meanwhile, both Donald Trump and Roger Williams have consistently put themselves and their financial interests before the people in Texas. This presidency has been an unmitigated failure-- and Roger Williams has enabled him, every step of the way." Polling has turned so positive towards Oliver that last week the DCCC felt compelled to add her to their Red-to-Blue program. Same just happened in the district next door, TX-10, where Mike Siegel has battle the wealthiest man in the House, Trump lieutenant Michael McCaul to a dead heat. (You can contribute to both Siegel and Oliver here.)

Although Democrats stand to pick up a half dozen Texas congressional seats-- and win back the state House to boot-- Texas isn't the only "red" state preparing the shed more seats to the Democrats. Kapur's report noted Beltway imbeciles-- he was more polite-- who long believed the GOP would gain seats are now confronting the prospect that their minority might shrink. "Cook Political Report’s forecast gives Democrats a better than even chance of expanding their House majority." That can be interpreted as "even the conservative fools at Cook fear Democrats are on the verge of winning dozens of seats we scoffed at the idea of flipping just a few weeks ago."

Beltway insiders like Cook and the DCCC have never taken Audrey Denney's race against Trump appendage Doug LaMalfa seriously. After all, CA-01, in the northeast corner of rural California where it borders on Republican parts of Oregon and Nevada, has a daunting PVI of R+11. It was one of only 2 districts in California where Hillary took less than 37% of the vote and in the midst of 2018's "Blue Wave," neither Gavin Newsom nor Dianne Feinstein won a single one of CA-01's eleven counties. But look a little closer at the 2018 results and you'll notice that in both the biggest and third biggest counties in the district-- Butte and Nevada-- Denney beat LaMalfa with substantial majorities. This cycle, she's been expanding her base into Shasta, Placer, Siskiyou and Placer counties and is poised to make up the 9 point vote deficit from 2018. Her latest tracking poll by Lake Research, one of the most consistently accurate polling firms in the country, shows her and LaMalfa in a dead heat. Please consider contributing to Denney's campaign here and take a look at this analysis from Lake, an analysis that shows exactly how a deep red district flips progressive blue:

The Donald Drag

 

We've been writing extensively about Trump's electoral toxicity for 4 years. I checked and noticed that I started using the tag "toxicity of Donald Trump" in early June, 2016. Now, as election day 2020 approaches, Republican operatives and funders have largely given up on Trump himself and are freaking out over how to save down-ballot Republicans in places that haven't been truly competitive in the recent past.

Over 6 million Americans have already voted-- far more Democrats than Republicans-- and the only changes in the electoral outlook that time is bringing is a further collapse of support for Trump and the party that has shamelessly enabled him. If polls are to be believed, the public thinks it's time for the GOP to step up and take its bitter medicine. This morning, NY Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns wrote about how Trump's alienation of women, suburbanites and seniors is killing Republicans across the Sun Belt. "The inflammatory behavior that has alienated voters beyond his base," they reported, "has long posed the most significant impediment to Mr. Trump’s re-election. But one week after he rampaged through the first presidential debate and then was hospitalized with the coronavirus, only to keep minimizing the disease as it spread through his White House, the president’s conduct is not only undermining his own campaign but threatening his entire party... He is trailing not just in must-win battlegrounds but according to private G.O.P. surveys, he is repelling independents to the point where Mr. Biden has drawn closer in solidly red states, including Montana, Kansas and Missouri, people briefed on the data said. Nowhere has Mr. Trump harmed himself and his party more than across the Sun Belt, where the electoral coalition that secured a generation of Republican dominance is in danger of coming apart."

Fine, but Biden doesn't need-- nor will he likely get-- electoral votes in Montana, Kansas and Missouri. What this is about at this point is if Trump's electoral collapse will, for example, flip the Florida state Senate, flip the Texas state House, elect Democrats like Texas' Mike Siegel and Julie Oliver in Texas districts once considered safely red-- districts carefully drawn to be safely red.

No one imagined that when Ted Yoho announced his retirement-- for whatever shady reasons-- his north central Florida district could flip blue and send a 26 year old super-progressive, Adam Christensen, to Congress, now a distinct possibility as the campaign of Trumpist shill Kat Cammack circles the drain. When voters look-- instead of voting by rote-- Florida's Cammack, Texas incumbents Michael McCaul and Roger Williams and California corrupt conservative Crooked Ken Calvert are all extremely unattractive candidates. And Trump is causing voters in their districts to end the old habits of just voting Republican without thinking.

“There are limits to what people can take with the irresponsibility, the untruthfulness, just the whole persona,” said Jeff Flake, the former Republican senator from Arizona. Mr. Flake is crossing party lines to support Mr. Biden, who made his first visit of the general election here Thursday.

Many of the Sun Belt states seemingly within Mr. Biden’s reach resisted the most stringent public-health policies to battle the coronavirus. As a result, states like Arizona, Georgia and Texas faced a powerful wave of infections for much of the summer, setting back efforts to revive commercial activity.

...Biden is mounting an assertive campaign and facing rising pressure to do more in the historically Republican region. He is buttressed by a fund-raising gusher for Democratic candidates, overwhelming support from people of color and defections from the G.O.P. among college-educated whites in and around cities like Atlanta, Houston and Phoenix [as well as Gainesville and Austin].

“Cities in states like Arizona and Texas are attracting young people, highly-educated people, and people of color-- all groups that the national Republican Party has walked away from the last four years,” said the Oklahoma City mayor, David F. Holt, a Republican. “This losing demographic bet against big cities and their residents is putting Sun Belt states in play.”

...On Thursday, in a conference call with a group of lobbyists, Mr. McConnell vented that the party’s Senate candidates are being financially overwhelmed because of small-dollar contributions to ActBlue, the online liberal fund-raising hub.

Let me break in here and remind readers that the ActBlue thermometer on the right is meant to make it easy for potential contributors to send campaign funds-- whether $10 or $100 or $1,000 to well-vetted progressives like Adam Christensen in Florida. Liam O'Mara in southern California, and Mike Siegel and Julie Oliver in Texas, 4 candidates on the cutting edge of flipping "safe" red seats in the Sun Belt, all in districts that Trump won in 2016 because of suburban voters-- who have now become distinctly unenamoured of him since then. These are shifting districts and if Cammack, Calvert, McCaul and Williams are unattractive candidates-- and are they ever-- Christensen, O'Mara, Siegel and Oliver are as good as democracy can serve up.

Democrats did well in the Sun Belt in 2018, winning Republican seats across the region and coming very close in others that are highly competitive right now. Martin and Burns wrote that "Now Republicans are at risk of that wave cresting again, and even higher... [I]f Mr. Trump loses across the South and West, it would force a much deeper introspection on the right about Trump and Trumpism-- and their electoral future in the fastest-growing and most diverse part of the country."

Polls show the presidential race in Texas is effectively tied, and congressional polling for both parties has found Mr. Biden running up significant leads across the state’s once-red suburbs. A Biden victory there could be transformational, providing Democrats an opportunity to enlarge their House majority, shape redistricting and deliver a devastating psychological blow to Republicans.





“Texas is really Biden’s to lose if he invests now, and that must include his time and presence in the state,” [Beto] O’Rourke said in an interview. “He can not only win our 38 electoral votes but really help down ballot Democrats, lock in our maps for 10 years, deny Trump the chance to declare victory illegally and send Trumpism on the run.” ... Biden is increasing his ad spending in the state and is expected to dispatch his wife, Jill, and his running mate, Senator Kamala Harris, there in the coming days, according to Democrats familiar with the planning.

Texas’s growth has been explosive: Over 1.5 million new voters have registered since 2016, a third of them in the diverse, transplant-filled counties that include San Antonio, Houston and Austin. The anger toward Mr. Trump has emboldened Democratic candidates to run more audacious campaigns.

In a Dallas-area House district held by a Republican who’s retiring, the Democratic Party is sending mailers telling voters that their nominee will “stand up to President Trump.” Senator John Cornyn, running for re-election, has lamented privately that Mr. Trump is stuck in the low 40s in polling, holding back other Republicans, people familiar with his comments said.

"We're in the middle of a pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of people," Julie Oliver reminded me this morning with an effective message she's using across her district. "Many of our kids' schools are still closed. Women are having to leave their jobs. We've lost millions of jobs. And meanwhile, both Donald Trump and Roger Williams have consistently put themselves and their financial interests before the people in Texas. This presidency has been an unmitigated failure-- and Roger Williams has enabled him, every step of the way."

Donald Trying To Use Taxpayer Money To Buy Seniors' Votes For $200 Each

 

Decade after decade, seniors have always been the most reliable voters. In 2016, Trump won among voters over 65 years old. He beat Hillary 53-44% in this cohort, which is how he managed to win. This cycle, polls have been showing his numbers among the elderly slipping drastically, enough to cost him senior-heavy states like Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and possibly Iowa, Ohio, Montana and Georgia.

Seniors have noticed that Trump is full of crap and that his three and a half years in office have been a disaster for them. So he's trying to buy their votes with a cheap scheme-- a $200 discount card for prescription drugs that he's stealing from Medicare.

Wall Street Journal reporter Stephanie Armour wrote early yesterday that his coupon program will be funded by the Medicare Trust Fund, under a program that lets him waive standards to test new initiatives. The regime expects to send out 33 Trump cards before the election. Always the smooth talking snake oil salesman , Señor T told an audience at a super-spreader event in North Carolina that "Nobody’s seen this before, these cards are incredible. The cards will be mailed out in coming weeks, I will always take care of our wonderful senior citizens. Joe Biden won’t be doing this."

This election stunt will cost the taxpayers $6.6 billion. Stat News reported that "It is unclear whether Trump’s promises on $200 credits for prescription drug coupons will come to fruition. Under the Constitution, it is Congress, not the White House, that is empowered to spend taxpayer money, and it is unclear where the roughly $6.6 billion for the program would come from. The idea has never been formally proposed or sketched out by health officials, though the New York Times reported this week that Trump officials had tried to convince the pharmaceutical industry to pay for similar cards worth $100. The drug industry refused."

Texas has one of the biggest populations of senior citizens anywhere and Julie Oliver is running in a central Texas district on a platform that includes protecting and expanding the rights of seniors, not on cheap election eve shenanigans. She told me that her mom "was a public school teacher who really struggled to survive on Social Security, and I understand that we need to expand it, not allow multi-millionaires like Roger Williams to game the system, and pay less into Social Security than their fair share. For years, he’s been threatening to cut Social Security so that Wall Street CEOs can keep getting richer. So let’s be clear. When I’m elected, we’re going to protect the earned benefits that Mexican seniors have paid into their whole lives, and we’re going to expand social security by making billionaires pay their fair share."

Cathy Kunkel is running for a House seat in the middle of the Trumpiest state in America West Virginia. She's campaigning on uplifting work families and noted yesterday that "Instead of poorly conceived election-day gimmicks, West Virginians need real healthcare reform. And we certainly won't get there with a president and Congressional representative who have tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to take away healthcare from people with pre-existing conditions-- and who have made no real attempt in the past 4 year to challenge the power of the pharmaceutical industry and bring down prescription drug prices."

The are a bunch of Republican, ex-Republican and #NeverTrump groups releasing ads attacking Trump, his morals, his allies, his tactics, and his policies. They seem to be mostly talking to each other, to some right-wing elites and to Democrats who already hate Donald's guts. But the State Government Leadership Foundation, which is the dark money PAC of the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), isn't part of that bubble. They are very much a part of the Republican Party Establishment. But yesterday they started running an ad that savages a Trumpanzee election stunt-- his new drug pricing proposal-- albeit without mentioning Donald by name. They're working with PhRMA against Trump and I doubt they would be doing anything like this if they thought he had a real chance to serve a second term. PhRMA is one of the top financial backers of the RSLC and the State Government Leadership Foundation and Trump doesn't have the guts to go after them. Watch:

Google Won't Play Our Ad For Julie Oliver Because: "Shocking Content"

 

Blue America's IE Committee has begun purchasing ads in support of our candidates. The first batch went up as YouTube pre-roll for Kara Eastman (NE-02), Liam O'Mara (CA-42), Mike Siegel (TX-10) and Julie Oliver (TX-25). There's another one, still in production, going up for Adam Christensen (FL-03) this week. I want to talk about the Julie Oliver ad because Google removed it and told us it violates their "shocking content" policy. They didn't tell us which part of the ad violates the policy. Here's the policy:

Shocking content

The following is not allowed:

• Promotions containing violent language, gruesome or disgusting imagery, or graphic images or accounts of physical trauma

Examples (non-exhaustive): Crime scene or accident photos, execution videos

• Promotions containing gratuitous portrayals of bodily fluids or waste

Examples (non-exhaustive): Blood, guts, gore, sexual fluids, human or animal waste

• Promotions containing obscene or profane language

Examples (non-exhaustive): Swear or curse words, slurs relating to race or sexuality, variations and misspellings of profane language

Note: If the official name of your product, website, or app includes profane language, request a review and provide details of the name.

• Promotions that are likely to shock or scare

Examples (non-exhaustive): Promotions that suggest you may be in danger, be infected with a disease, or be the victim of a conspiracy

We appealed and we lucked-out. The Google employee who got the appeal is not a right-wing freak like the one who disallowed the ad (after, we assume, getting complaints from Republicans in the district. So the ad was up again. In the interim we made another version where we took out slides we thought might offend someone enough to claim they violated the policies. And sure enough, on Saturday, they disallowed the ad again!

Please take a look at it and tell us what you think is "shocking content." The ads only run in the candidates' respective districts. But you can see them all on the Blue America YouTube site

The music for the Julie Oliver ad, "Cussin' Trump," was created by two-time Grammy Award winner Gary Nicholson, who re-purposed his song "You Can't Listen When You're Talkin'" and gave it to us (gratis) to use to help our candidates. When Google pulled it down there were already 2,182 impressions and almost a quarter of them-- 517 people-- had watched at least 30 seconds. Blue America is charged $36.01 for that many views, a good deal. As of Saturday afternoon, over 4,000 people had watched at least 30 seconds of each of the other ads.

Right now 4,155 people have watched the Mike Siegel ad, 4,944 have watched the Liam O'Mara ad, 4,458 have watched the Kara Eastman ad. And we're determined to get the Julie Oliver ad back up-- as well as the Adam Christensen ad when it's finished. That's a lot of viewers and we're happy about the campaign, other than the arbitrary interference by Google. So far we've spent $436.17 on O'Mara, $437.08 on Eastman and $432.40 on Siegel. Amazing how close it is.

In any case, we fund these ad campaigns with the money contributors give to Blue America. We usually only ask for contributions for our I.E. (Independent Expenditure) Committee once a year. That's today. You can contribute by clicking here or on the 2020 IE thermometer on the right. You can also send a check to Blue America PAC, I.E. at PO Box 27201, Los Angeles, CA 90027. I always feel a little embarrassed asking for contributions that don't go directly to our candidates, mostly because I believe the candidates know how to spend contribution money better than we or anyone else. But Blue America is an all volunteer organization and over 95% of the contributions that come in are given to the candidates. We have some fun with the IEs-- billboards, TV and radio ads, newspaper ads and these Google ads. And we're always open to suggestions for how work more effectively and which candidates to concentrate on.

The contributions we get today will go to keep these ads running and to make ads for more candidates.

And by the way, one far right crackpot wrote this on his Facebook pageant we suspect he also complained to Google:

Congratulations Blue America on making the most inaccurate, hate filled, and ignorant ads on all of the internet! Wowzers Amazing, it is truly amazing how desperate the far left is to convince the world that Donald Trump is some kind of dishonorable freak. Most educated people can see straight through your lies and facades. You make the corrupt system, you convince people to do evil, and you convert people into hate filled individuals just like you are. Then you turn around and blame Trump and the police. A Blue America is a communistic satanic society hell bent on selfish extortion, that is no America. #TRUMP2020

This image is not in any of our ads

 

Biden Is Better Than Trump On Climate And The Environment

In his Climate speech yesterday, Biden tore into Trump with two well-written questions: "If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised if we have more of America ablaze? If you give a climate denier four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised when more of America is underwater?" Nice! And Trump earned it!

Before he spoke, 170 environmental leaders, generally part of the Democratic Party establishment coalition urged their supporters to vote for Biden... rather than Howie Hawkins of the Green Party, someone who has no chance but who provides an alternative to backing the candidates of the two corrupt establishment parties-- one which has re-nominated a dangerous and criminal fascist and one which has nominated an unfit conservative, not as bad as Trump, of course, but still bad... and years behind your average Democrat on Climate policy.

The only national Climate group I trust is the Sunrise Movement. Their leaders aren't interested in being invited to Democratic Party cocktail parties or being buddies with Schumer or Pelosi. They're only interested in fixing the Climate Crisis. This is how they explain their strategy:

1- We support candidates who, if elected, would represent a significant break with the status quo.

2- We support politicians who will represent us, not the fossil fuel industry.

3- We have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies.

So different from the corrupted elites in the old fashioned environmental movement! Sunrise endorsed Bernie and I have no idea if they plan to endorse the lesser evil for November. I hope not; it will tarnish their brand. Their 16 current endorsements for House seats include 15 endorsed by Blue America:

• Audrey Denney (CA-01)
• Marie Newman (IL-03)
• Cori Bush (MO-01)
• Ilhan Omar (MN-05)
• Rashida Tlaib (MI-13)
• Mike Siegel (TX-10)
• Jamaal Bowman (NY-16)
• Julie Oliver (TX-25)
• Beth Doglio (WA-10)
• Cathy Kunkel (WV-02)
• Jon Hoadley (MI-06)
• Qasim Rashid (VA-01)
• AOC (NY-14)
• Mondaire Jones (NY-17)
• Ayanna Pressely (MA-07)

And their 3 Senate candidates-- Marquita Bradshaw (TN), Paul Jean Swearengin (WV) and Ed Markey (MA)-- are also Blue America's Senate candidates. I could care less who Sierra Club or League of Conservative Voters endorses; at this point, it's like caring who the DSCC or DCCC endorses.

Biden has emphasized that Trump "has no interest in meeting this moment. He’s already said he wanted to withhold aid to California, to punish the people of California. Because they didn’t vote for him. This is another crisis. Another crisis he won’t take responsibility for. The west is literally on fire." He also said that, as a nation, "We stand with families who have lost everything. The firefighters. The first responders, risking everything to save others... People are not just worried about raging fires. They’re worried about the air they breath, the damage to their lungs... this year alone nearly 5m acres have burned across 10 states. More acreage than the entire state of Connecticut... We have a choice. We can invest in our infrastructure, make it stronger, more resilient, improving the health of Americans and creating millions of good-paying jobs while at the same time tackling the root causes of climate change. Or we can continue down the path Donald Trump has us on. The path of indifference, costing tens of billions of dollars to rebuild, where the human cost, the lives, the livelihoods the homes and the communities destroyed are immeasurable... With every bout of nature’s fury caused by our own inaction on climate change, more Americans see and feel the devastation. Whether they’re in big cities, small towns, coastlines or farm towns. It’s happening everywhere. It’s happening now. It affects us all."

Audrey Denney, the progressive Democrat running for the northeast California congressional seat (CA-01) that Trump enabler Doug LaMalfa currently holds, told us this morning that "CAL-FIRE, natural resource managers, and fire scientists all agree. Climate change along with vegetation management issues are making our wildfires worse. We will continue to lose lives and property in our part of the world until we have leadership that believes in science and has the political courage to take action." And that's not either Trump nor LaMalfa.

Julie Oliver, enthusiastically endorsed by both Blue America and the Sunrise Movement, laid out an aggressive plan for dealing with Climate Change which Biden should adopt for the country. But he won't.

• Transition the United States to carbon-free, 100% renewable energy by 2035.
• Eliminate emissions from the power sector in the 10-15 year time frame we have left to address the climate crisis.
• Supercharge the economy through major investments in American industries and manufacturing, modernizing our infrastructure, skilled labor, and innovation in clean technology.
• Provide workforce development and training, labor protections, livable wages, and collective bargaining rights for all jobs in the transition away from fossil fuels.
• Create millions of good-paying new jobs through low-carbon emission generation technologies, solar and wind technologies, energy efficient goods manufacturing and installation, building construction and retrofits, environmental remediation, forestry, and agriculture.
• Ensure a just transition.
• Invest in renewable energy, efficiency, smart grid, energy storage, electric vehicles and other clean energy technologies and green infrastructure to reach our decarbonization goals.
• Democratize the clean energy economy by increasing community ownership of energy generation through more distributed systems and public cooperatives.
• Stop fossil fuel extraction on public lands.
• Hold big business civilly or criminally accountable for their current or historical pollution.
• Innovate and expand energy efficiency through new building, power, and industrial standards, technology, and retrofits.
• Remove lead service water lines and fix water infrastructure problems in America, and protect our watersheds and waterways.
• Restore the American landscape through reforestation, wetlands restoration, and expanded sustainable farming and soil practices.
• Work with front-line, indigenous, and low-income communities and communities of color to build resilience and ensure pollution-free communities and economic opportunity.
• Modernize mass transportation by scaling up charging infrastructure for zero emission passenger vehicles and transition away from fossil fuels in heavy duty vehicles, aviation, and rail, while innovating and scaling up the next generation of carbon-neutral fuels and biofuels.
• Support and pass HR 763, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.
• Ban offshore drilling in the Arctic and the ANWR, and prevent Kinder Morgan from seizing Hill Country land through eminent domain.
• Create incentives and standards to promote soil health for better food, water quality, and carbon storage.

Scientific American started publishing on August 28, 1845. That's 175 years ago, even before Biden was in the Senate. Today was the first time they ever endorsed a political candidate. "This year," wrote the editors, "we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly."

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people-- because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future.

The pandemic would strain any nation and system, but Trump's rejection of evidence and public health measures have been catastrophic in the U.S. He was warned many times in January and February about the onrushing disease, yet he did not develop a national strategy to provide protective equipment, coronavirus testing or clear health guidelines. Testing people for the virus, and tracing those they may have infected, is how countries in Europe and Asia have gained control over their outbreaks, saved lives, and successfully reopened businesses and schools. But in the U.S., Trump claimed, falsely, that “anybody that wants a test can get a test.” That was untrue in March and remained untrue through the summer. Trump opposed $25 billion for increased testing and tracing that was in a pandemic relief bill as late as July. These lapses accelerated the spread of disease through the country-- particularly in highly vulnerable communities that include people of color, where deaths climbed disproportionately to those in the rest of the population.

It wasn't just a testing problem: if almost everyone in the U.S. wore masks in public, it could save about 66,000 lives by the beginning of December, according to projections from the University of Washington School of Medicine. Such a strategy would hurt no one. It would close no business. It would cost next to nothing. But Trump and his vice president flouted local mask rules, making it a point not to wear masks themselves in public appearances. Trump has openly supported people who ignored governors in Michigan and California and elsewhere as they tried to impose social distancing and restrict public activities to control the virus. He encouraged governors in Florida, Arizona and Texas who resisted these public health measures, saying in April-- again, falsely-- that “the worst days of the pandemic are behind us” and ignoring infectious disease experts who warned at the time of a dangerous rebound if safety measures were loosened.

And of course, the rebound came, with cases across the nation rising by 46 percent and deaths increasing by 21 percent in June. The states that followed Trump's misguidance posted new daily highs and higher percentages of positive tests than those that did not. By early July several hospitals in Texas were full of COVID-19 patients. States had to close up again, at tremendous economic cost. About 31 percent of workers were laid off a second time, following the giant wave of unemployment-- more than 30 million people and countless shuttered businesses-- that had already decimated the country. At every stage, Trump has rejected the unmistakable lesson that controlling the disease, not downplaying it, is the path to economic reopening and recovery.

Trump repeatedly lied to the public about the deadly threat of the disease, saying it was not a serious concern and “this is like a flu” when he knew it was more lethal and highly transmissible, according to his taped statements to journalist Bob Woodward. His lies encouraged people to engage in risky behavior, spreading the virus further, and have driven wedges between Americans who take the threat seriously and those who believe Trump's falsehoods. The White House even produced a memo attacking the expertise of the nation's leading infectious disease physician, Anthony Fauci, in a despicable attempt to sow further distrust.

Trump's reaction to America's worst public health crisis in a century has been to say “I don't take responsibility at all.” Instead he blamed other countries and his White House predecessor, who left office three years before the pandemic began.

But Trump's refusal to look at the evidence and act accordingly extends beyond the virus. He has repeatedly tried to get rid of the Affordable Care Act while offering no alternative; comprehensive medical insurance is essential to reduce illness. Trump has proposed billion-dollar cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agencies that increase our scientific knowledge and strengthen us for future challenges. Congress has countermanded his reductions. Yet he keeps trying, slashing programs that would ready us for future pandemics and withdrawing from the World Health Organization. These and other actions increase the risk that new diseases will surprise and devastate us again.

...Biden is getting advice on these public health issues from a group that includes David Kessler, epidemiologist, pediatrician and former U.S. Food and Drug Administration chief; Rebecca Katz, immunologist and global health security specialist at Georgetown University; and Ezekiel Emanuel, bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania. It does not include physicians who believe in aliens and debunked virus therapies, one of whom Trump has called “very respected” and “spectacular.”

Biden has a family and caregiving initiative, recognizing this as key to a sustained public health and economic recovery. His plans include increased salaries for child care workers and construction of new facilities for children because the inability to afford quality care keeps workers out of the economy and places enormous strains on families.

On the environment and climate change, Biden wants to spend $2 trillion on an emissions-free power sector by 2035, build energy-efficient structures and vehicles, push solar and wind power, establish research agencies to develop safe nuclear power and carbon capture technologies, and more. The investment will produce two million jobs for U.S. workers, his campaign claims, and the climate plan will be partly paid by eliminating Trump's corporate tax cuts. Historically disadvantaged communities in the U.S. will receive 40 percent of these energy and infrastructure benefits.

It is not certain how many of these and his other ambitions Biden will be able to accomplish; much depends on laws to be written and passed by Congress. But he is acutely aware that we must heed the abundant research showing ways to recover from our present crises and successfully cope with future challenges.

Although Trump and his allies have tried to create obstacles that prevent people from casting ballots safely in November, either by mail or in person, it is crucial that we surmount them and vote. It's time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.

And, yes, Albert Einstein used to write for the magazine.

Is One Party's Politicians More Or Less Corrupt Than The Other's?

Hard Ball by Nancy Ohanian

In terms of political parties, it was once clearer who the good guys were and who the bad guys were in the Dark Money world or legalistic, systemic bribery. Now... not so much. Poke a Democrat about taking legalistic bribes and he or she will start screeching about "unilateral disarmament." But as new report by Alex Seitz-Wald for NBC News makes it clear that if the Dems were once the party opposed to Dark Money, they are now the party getting the most out of it. Progressives tend to reject corporate PAC money, for example, but corrupt Democratic Party leaders like Pelosi and Hoyer scoop it up with alacrity and then buy loyalty within the House caucus by spreading it around. Seitz-Wald may be a fool but he's correct when he writes that "Democratic super PACs are spending more than Republican ones" and that Democratic Super PACs outspent conservative Super PACs in 2018. Russ Feingold's prediction has come true that Democrats would "lose our soul" if they allowed Big Money into the party. Just look at Chuck Schumer. There isn't a person on earth who would say he has anything even resembling a soul-- and he's one of (many) go-betweens connecting the Wall Street banksters with the Democratic Party.

Advocates are concerned with super PACs, which can accept donations of unlimited size but have to reveal the names of their donors and regularly disclose their activity. But they're more worried about dark money groups: nonprofit organizations that can't be as explicitly political as super PACs, but can keep their donors secret forever and don't have to reveal much about activities before elections.

While concerns about campaign finance reform that once animated Democratic voters have been eclipsed by the desire to oust President Donald Trump, advocates are left to wonder if the party can really be trusted to follow through on its promises to dismantle a system that may help them get elected.

"If Democrats were to win the Senate and the White House, there is reason to be concerned that they may not carry through with their commitments," Holman added. "I have no doubt that we are going to have to hold their word over their head."

The Democratic National Committee adopted a platform last month calling for a ban on dark money, and Joe Biden says one of his first priorities as president would be signing the sweeping reform bill House Democrats passed last year that would, among other things, match small donations 6-to-1 to encourage grassroots giving.

But his campaign also says they'll take all the help they can get for now and that bill, known as H.R.1, would have to compete for limited legislative bandwidth with efforts to address the coronavirus pandemic, the economy and much more.

Republicans, who generally oppose major campaign finance reform efforts, cry hypocrisy.

"It's just like everything else Biden stands for. He believes it until it's of political benefit to reverse himself," said Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh.

Democrats, however, argue that the only way they can rein in big money in politics is to first use big money in politics to win.

"We aren't going to unilaterally disarm against Donald Trump and right-wing conservatives, but look forward to the day when unlimited money and super PACs are a thing of the past, even if it means putting our own PAC out of business," said Guy Cecil, the chairman of Priorities USA, the super PAC first founded to support Obama's re-election.

On principle, Democrats opposed Citizens United, the Supreme Court's landmark 2010 decision that opened the floodgates to virtually unlimited money in politics. But they also were against it because they were sure Republicans and their big-business allies would outspend them.

At first, Obama set the example for his party by trying to keep his hands clean of the super PAC game. "It was just this slog to try to get Democrats to think there was any benefit at all to giving to outside groups," said a Democrat involved in early efforts to raise money for a super PAC.

Quickly, though, party leaders concluded their position against unlimited donations and dark money wasn't tenable, and it turned out there was plenty of it flowing on the Democratic side, too. Obama eventually blessed Priorities USA, which helped kick off a proliferation of liberal big-money groups.

"If Democrats don't compete, it would be like preparing for a nuclear war by grabbing your fly swatter," said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic operative who has worked for both campaigns and outside groups.

Democrats at first said they felt sick about doing it and vowed to hold themselves to a higher standard. They would support super PACs, which publicly disclose their donors, but railed against dark money groups, which don't. But that standard eventually eroded, the apologies grew more perfunctory and they ended up diving in head-first, looking for new loopholes to exploit. And Trump's election has supercharged the spending.

...Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which runs the campaign finance data warehouse OpenSecrets.org, said her group has tracked liberal groups "taking dark money in politics to a new level of opacity" and caught them trying new tricks, such as creating faux news sites to make their attack ads seem more credible.

While overall dark money spending is roughly even between the parties right now, Democrats have a clear edge in congressional races, Krumholz said. Around 65 percent of dark money TV ads in 2020 Senate races and 85 percent of dark money TV ads in House races are sponsored by liberal groups, according to Krumholz.

"Unfortunately, there has been comfort with this that has grown over time on both sides of the aisle," Krumholz said. "Nobody wants to be the sucker that is playing by the rules when someone is getting away with murder."

One large dark money group, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, has funneled millions of dollars to more than 100 liberal groups, accepting individual donations as large as $51.7 million and $26.7 million, all without having to reveal any information about who is behind those donations.

Amy Kurtz, the Sixteen Thirty Fund's executive director, said they're just playing by the rules.

"We support and have lobbied in favor of reform to the current campaign finance system (through H.R. 1), but we are equally committed to following the current laws to level the playing field for progressives in this election," Kurtz said in a statement.

Now, many super PACs, which disclose their donors, are routing money through allied nonprofits, which do not have to make their contributors' names public, further obscuring the ultimate source of the cash.

"For a voter who simply wants to know where the money is coming from and going to, you almost have to be a full-time researcher or investigative reporter to connect all the dots," Krumholz said.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) remains one of the fiercest opponents of campaign finance reform, not only blocking bills like H.R.1 and disclosure measures, but even intervening in legal battles to overturn state campaign finance rules.

He sees it as a free speech issue, hailing the Citizens United decision as "an important step in the direction of restoring First Amendment rights."

All this leaves campaign finance reform advocates dependent on Democrats winning in November-- even if it takes some dark money to get them there.

"We are on the cusp of having the best opportunity to repair the campaign finance system since the Watergate scandal of the 1970s," said Fred Wertheimer, a veteran good-government advocate and president of Democracy 21. "But that depends on how the elections come out."

What a crock of crap. "Depends on how the elections come out?" Why? Are the corrupt conservatives the DCCC and DSCC recruited going to suddenly become reformers? It takes real effort and real talent-- of a kind most politicians don't possess or even strive to develop-- to raise campaign cash without resorting to criminality. Two grassroots progressives who are not owned an operated by the DC Democrats are Kara Eastman in Nebraska and Julie Oliver in Texas. Neither accepts Dark Money and both are likely too be in Congress next year. It's worth contributing to womanlike Kara and Julie (which is what I included the thermometer below.

Last night Julie told me that she doesn't take a dime from any PAC, unlike Roger Williams. We need to get corporations and big money out of our politics and out of our democracy, and that's why it's so important that we're taking this stance."

Kara's campaign has been very much driven by a desire to get dark money out of American politics. Her opponent reeks of corruption. "Don Bacon must be spooked because the Republican dark money machine recently went into overdrive in Nebraska’s Second. We’ve seen dark and grainy TV ads accusing me of all sorts of hellfire and brimstone in the Omaha suburbs, paid for by secretive groups like “Defending Mainstreet” (ironic name from a DC-based right-wing Super PAC). When I talk to voters in the district they tell me the ads aren’t landing. My concern is that, like another right wing authoritarian once said, “if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth.” Unlike the dark money ads propping up Bacon, my voter communications are all based on fact and the Congressional record. It’s easily to do since Bacon votes with Trump 94% of the time."