The Congressional Republicans Are Getting What's Coming To Them-- In Fact, Many Of Them Deserve Much Worse Than Just Losing Their Jobs

 

Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer noted what they termed a remarkable fact in their Politico column yesterday: Señor Trumpanzee and Pelosi haven't spoken since she ripped up his State of the Union speech last October. Suddenly, though, "their incentives are aligned: they both want a massive Covid deal in an unthinkably quick timeframe. This may happen, it may not, but both sides seem to be rowing toward the same goal at the moment. Washington has never negotiated on a package of this magnitude this late into a presidential election year."

Sherman and Palmer reminded their audience that Trump is an unpredictable, self-serving, dysfunctional sociopath-- they referred to it as "unreadable and unplayable"-- and "has no governing theory. But, in recent days, he has apparently decided that it is in his political interest to spend trillions of dollars. Pelosi has always wanted a big deal, but she’s hung on negotiating with Washington’s most eager man, Steven Mnuchin. She wanted a deal, and Mnuchin was her only option. (She has no patience for Mark Meadows, and the administration has no one else who knows what they’re doing.)

Sherman and Palmer claim a deal "isn’t all too close at this moment" and they may or may not be correct. It's as close as Trump wants it to be. All he has to do is give in to Pelosi. She sent a letter to the House Democratic conference and told her colleagues that "the $1.8 trillion offer from the administration was 'one step forward, two steps back.' The letter explains where Pelosi finds fault in the GOP offer. State and local funding is 'sadly inadequate,' she said, and the two are still $200 billion off in unemployment insurance. This could be a negotiating tactic, but even if so, these are real issues that need to be solved. It's in Pelosi's interest to hold out for every last thing, given how eager the Trump administration is for a deal. Pelosi wants this too. On Thursday, during a private phone call with her leadership team, Pelosi revealed another one of her incentives to getting a deal: she thought it would be better to do it now so she didn’t have to do it early in a Biden administration."

Sherman and Palmer got to a blockade to any deal: McConnell, who are already in the head-space of opposing any big spending deals (after running up the biggest peacetime deficit in history). Later in the day Sherman teamed up with another Politico writer, Burgess Everett to dig a little deeper into the scope of McConnell's and his cronies' opposition to a relief package the whole country-- meaning the voters, if not the donors-- are demanding. "Senate Republicans," they wrote, "lashed out at a potential framework for a new coronavirus deal between the Trump administration and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a conference call Saturday, warning that there was little support for a big spending bill right before the election. At least two GOP senators warned White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that spending as much as $2 trillion on a big bill could backfire at the ballot box. The administration has floated a large spending deal to Pelosi but is trying to get her to back down on some spending levels, but senators said even the White House wants to spend too much, according to multiple sources briefed on the call."

“There’s no appetite right now to spend the White House number or the House number,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), according to two sources briefed on the call.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) said that giving into Pelosi on anything seen as expansion of Obamacare in the next recovery bill will be seen as “an enormous betrayal by our supporters,” according to people familiar with the call.

The pushback from Senate Republicans shows just how difficult it will be to assemble a spending bill that can garner support from enough House Democrats and Senate Republicans to satisfy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

The stern response prompted Meadows to say that he would take their concerns back to President Donald Trump.

Incumbent GOP senators and House Democrats are eager for a deal before the Nov. 3 election, as is Trump, who wants negotiators to “go big” now after previously telling them to pull the plug. The administration officials said no deal was done yet, but even the framework discussed on Saturday produced plenty of skepticism among the Republican ranks.

This would be “the deal knell for our majority if Pelosi gets this win,” warned Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), according to one source. Both she and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) warned Republicans could lose support in the election if they accepted this.

Lee offered this analogy, according to two sources briefed on the call: "This bill makes sex look like church.

Lee added that the GOP’s efforts to highlight Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, who is on track to be confirmed before the election, could be hampered by a large spending deal with Pelosi. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) alleged that any such a large spending bill could deflate the economic recovery from the coronavirus devastating economic effects.

“I don’t get it,” Scott said of a potential massive spending bill negotiated by Pelosi and the administration. Scott and other conservatives are eager to attack what they see as wasteful spending proposals that would go to state and local governments.

Several Republicans also criticized Federal Reserve Board chairman Jay Powell, who has pushed for more stimulus.

It's all one big game for them. They're all in their own Beltway bubble world of crooked millionaires and don't feel the pain most Americans-- including most Republican voters-- are feeling. This morning. on CNN's State of the Union, Trump economics coke-freak Larry Kudlow said Señor T may out-bid the Democrats' $2.2 trillion proposal (that was cut down from a $3.2 trillion proposal by good-faith Pelosi compromise with Mnuchin by the way). Will Trump then endorse McConnell's opponent in his Senate race back in Kentucky? None of the senators quoted by Sherman and Everett are facing the voters 3 weeks from tomorrow. John Katko isn't a senator-- he's a congressman from a D+3 district in central New York-- and he is facing the voters on November 3. The district, which gave Hillary a 48.9% to 45.3% win over Trump, has been very tolerant of Katko. But that about to end. Independent voters in the district aren't happy that he's been a shill and enabler for Trump.

One of the local papers noted that a recent poll showed Trump losing badly to Biden-- 53-34% in the district and the progressive Democrat taking on Katko is riding on Biden's coattails-- on the way to a 45-42% win over Katko.

The pollster, Steve Greenberg said that "While 0% of Balter voters are supporting Trump, 13% of Katko supporters say they're voting for Biden. These are voters that Katko needs to hold onto and likely increase if he wants to win reelection. And it is a group that Balter likely needs to try and woo back to her side if she wants to hold or increase her narrow lead."

Biden has endorsed Balter and "as Democrats hope Biden can provide a boost to Balter's chances in the 24th district, Katko is being affected by Trump's low numbers in the district. The president is viewed unfavorably by 60% of voters, according to the Siena poll. That includes 30% of Republicans. An example of GOP dissatisfaction with Trump came in late August when former Republican Congressman Jim Walsh endorsed Biden for president."

Grant Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University, thinks the main factor in how the presidential race affects the 24th district campaign is the negative view of Trump and how that hurts Katko.

"Trump has become a millstone around Katko's neck," Reeher wrote in an email to The Citizen. "Clearly the main campaign strategy of the Balter campaign is to associate Katko with Trump as much as possible. In this regard, the president's performance in the first debate probably hurt Katko by proxy. That might have been the last straw for some independent and even Democrat voters who were previously willing to split their ticket in order to vote for Katko. Katko will need a large chunk of split tickets in order to win, and those might be harder to come by now."

In 2016, Katko didn't endorse Trump. He chose to write in former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for president instead of casting a vote for Trump, the GOP nominee.

Four years later, Katko opted to endorse Trump for reelection. The endorsement was announced in January-- before the COVID-19 pandemic that killed more than 210,000 Americans and sparked an economic crisis. Katko maintains his support for Trump, despite the likely effect it's having on his own campaign.

"I imagine that if Katko could have seen into the future back when he said Trump was the better choice, in comparison with Biden, he might have decided differently," Reeher wrote. "But he's in a tough spot. Trump is the de facto leader of his party, and Katko has been effective in getting money for his district by not alienating him too much."

  Democrats are hoping that the results will be similar to 2012 when the party last won this congressional seat. That year, Democratic candidate Dan Maffei won the election and Barack Obama won reelection as president with 57% of the vote. The polls, including the Siena College survey, suggest that Biden could come close to matching Obama's 2012 total.

Republicans, though, believe Katko can repeat what he did in 2016: Win reelection by outperforming the GOP presidential candidate in the district. Katko finished 16 points better than Trump in the 24th district four years ago.

The difference for Katko in 2020: He's facing a tough reelection fight. It's likely that he will outperform Trump in the district, but he may lose his bid for a fourth term in Congress. 

Please consider clicking on the 2020 Congress Needs More Progressive Women thermometer above and contributing what you can to Dana Balter's campaign.

Republican Congressmen Worry That Trump Is Flushing Their Reelections Down The Toilet With His Own

Fred Upton wants to be seen as a moderate rather than the Trump enabler he is

Republican senators are afraid to do it because they worry Trump will notice and tweet something horrible about them, but some House Republicans are quietly trying to edge away from Trump to save their own skins. "Quietly" has been the key word there but Katie Edmondson and Rebecca Ruiz blew the whistle with a NY Times piece yesterday. They tried making the point that moderate Republicans-- whatever the hell that's supposed to be-- in competitive districts "are navigating a careful balance in addressing the coronavirus crisis," eager to not be associated with a president whose pandemic policies are widely recognized as the causes of death and destruction in our country. One congressman not mentioned in the piece was crooked Trump enabler Roger Williams in central Texas. "Congressman Williams is an extremist who is way out of step with the reality of what most Texans believe, as well as the everyday reality for people who have to work for a living," said Julie Oliver, the popular progressive Democrat who won her primary with 70% of the vote and is taking him on in November. "His response to the pandemic has been to funnel money to his own businesses while small business owners from Johnson county to Travis county get shut out of federal relief. He's fighting for the banks and predatory lenders, not mom and pop businesses in Texas. We deserve much better.

A great California progressive, Audrey Denney, is taking on far right northern California crackpot-- Doug LaMalfa, also unmentioned in the Times piece, unmentioned because he doesn't even pretend to be even remotely moderate. LaMalfa is a far right tea party backbencher in an R+11 district where he routinely assumes the safest approach is to mimic Trump. Yesterday, Audrey told us that LaMalfa's overt Trumpism, "calling our stay-at-home orders 'ridiculous measures' and arguing that our state leadership has 'taken it too far,' is not just bad advice and bad science. It’s an affront to the selfless and protective culture of our communities, who consistently band together to protect themselves and their neighbors during crises. There’s no question that the economic hardships of these stay-at-home orders are real and put people in potentially devastating economic circumstances, but protecting the lives of our loved ones and neighbors requires difficult choices. Rather than fighting the mitigation efforts because the symptoms are painful, we need to do what we do during a wildfire: follow the advice of public safety experts, focus our community energy on saving lives, identifying and protecting the most vulnerable, and working together to restore our nation to physical and economic health."

Edmondson and Ruiz mistakenly fell for Upton's carefully crafted bullshit about how "moderate" he is. He isn't. A much better description of Upton would point out that he's a Trump enabler and bootlicker who is uncomfortable being seen that way in a swing district. Edmondson and Ruiz think it's somehow courageous for his nightly Facebook update on the pandemic don't mention Trump. They're wrong. It would be courageous for Upton to mention Trump and explain how his public undercutting of Michigan's governor are making folks in MI-06 less safe, not more safe. They are, however, correct to point out that Trump's inadequate "response to the pandemic has raised questions that threaten to drag down Republicans’ electoral prospects this fall, or of the president’s provocative news briefings, which have become a forum for partisan attacks on Democrats and dubious claims about the virus."

Upton is a cleaver and deceitful opportunist. "You have to sort of thread the needle," he told Edmondson, explaining how he's desperately trying to navigate Trump’s psychotic performance during the crisis-- afraid if he mentions it Trump-Republicans will abandon him and afraid that if he goes along, independents and moderate Republicans will join forces to oust him for state Rep. Jon Hoadley in November. "I’ve been careful. I said, 'Let’s look to the future,' versus 'Why didn’t we do this a few months ago?’ I’m not interested in pointing the finger of blame. I want to correct the issues," Upton told her. Obama won the district in 2008-- with an 8 point margin, 53-45%. Hillary was a terrible candidate for this district and Trump beat her by the same 8 points. Two years later Upton was reelected but by outspending Democrat Matt Longjohn $3,553,344 to $1,443,958 and only by 4 points. Upton lost badly in the district's biggest county, Kalamazoo, and did poorly in Berrien and Van Buren counties, basically saved by the right-wingers in Allegan, St Joseph and Cass counties.

Upton has a far more formidable challenger this cycle in Hoadley. "We need bold leadership," he told me yesterday. "Representative Upton has failed time and again to hold the Trump administration accountable, and continues to do so. The fact is that people are dying as a result of this pandemic every day. Equivocating on life-saving measures, like making testing accessible, will only lead to more lives lost. We need to act fiercely to address this crisis, yet Mr. Upton continues to support the sentiments of the protesters in Lansing by calling for Governor Whitmer to ignore expert advice on the matter. I support the medical professionals who are working tirelessly to address this issue, and the guidance they are providing to overcome this pandemic. This isn't about political games-- this is about safeguarding the health of our communities. Representative Upton is simply not acting with the urgency and tenacity that the situation requires."

It is a tricky task for lawmakers like Mr. Upton in centrist districts throughout the country, who understand that their re-election prospects-- and any hope their party might have of taking back the House of Representatives-- could rise or fall based on how they address the pandemic. Already considered a politically endangered species before the novel coronavirus began ravaging the United States, these moderates [again Edmondson fell for Upton's spin; true, he isn't a Nazi but neither is he a moderate; he's a hard core, down the line conservative ideologue] are now working to counter the risk that their electoral fates could become tied to Mr. Trump’s response at a time when the independent voters whose support they need are increasingly unhappy with his performance.

The president’s combative news conferences, which his own political advisers have counseled him to curtail, have made the challenge all the steeper.

...And calling in to a radio show in Michigan, Mr. Upton hedged when asked if he agreed with the president’s optimism about reopening the economy. “As much as the president wants to open things up-- and we all do-- I think you’re going to have to let the virus really determine where things are at the end of the day,” he said. “We know that we are not there yet.”

And yet Upton has been too scared to speak out for Gov. Whitmer when she says exactly the same thing while being vilified by heavily armed right-wing terrorists grade don by Trump. That's what Fred Upton has become even if he was once maybe not quite as bad, decades ago.

And Upton isn't the only one. The other fake moderate-- this one is a blue (D+3) district-- they decided to profile was John Katko in Syracuse, New York. Obama won the district both times, in 2008 by 14 points and in 2012 by 16 points, Even a candidate entirely unsuited for a district like this-- Hillary-- managed to beat Trump, 48.9% to 45.3% in a hold-you-nose/lesser of two evils contest.

Last cycle, progressive Democrat Dana Balter was barely supported by the DCCC and was outspent by Katko $2,998,196 to $2,687,232. The NRCC put $885,085 into defending Katko while the vehemently anti-progressive DCCC grudgingly spent a measly $84,309 on Balter. She still managed to hold him to a 5 point margin and beat him in Onondaga County, the biggest county in the district. This cycle-- with much bigger name recognition-- she's challenging him again and pointing to his lockstep backing on the unpopular Trump.

“It does make it difficult at times,” Representative John Katko, Republican of New York, said in an interview. He said he hoped his constituents would evaluate him not based on Mr. Trump’s record, but on his own.

“I’m hanging on-- not hanging on, flourishing-- in a district I should probably not have as a Republican,” said Mr. Katko, one of only two House Republicans running for re-election in a district Hillary Clinton won in 2016. Voters “are going to judge me on what I did or did not do, and that’s all I can ask.”

In an attempt to ensure their contests become referendums on their own responses to the virus, rather than the president’s, vulnerable House Republicans are instead brandishing their own independent streaks, playing up their work with Democrats, doubling down on constituent service and hosting town-hall-style events-- avoiding mention of Mr. Trump whenever possible.

It is an approach that looks familiar to former Representative Carlos Curbelo, Republican of Florida, who tried to distance himself from Mr. Trump on immigration and other issues in 2018 as he fought to hang onto his seat in a diverse South Florida district, but was swept out in a midterm debacle that handed Democrats control of the House.

“The president continues to be reckless in the context of the Covid-19 crisis,” Mr. Curbelo said in an interview. “You could see a similar dynamic where a lot of Republicans in competitive districts will just break with him in an effort to protect their own candidacies.”

Many of his former colleagues in competitive districts had hoped the severity of the crisis would give them a platform to highlight their own responses, Mr. Curbelo said. But as Mr. Trump’s nightly briefings “became more about the president and his personality” than about the disease, he added, “Republicans have perceived a peril in that development, and certainly some of the recent polling validates that.”

Moderate Republicans [their aren't any and I would love to debate Edmondson on that] are doing what they can to shift the dynamic. In virtual town-hall-style meetings conducted by telephone from his central New York district, Mr. Katko has stressed the importance of bipartisanship, saying his constituents are “sick of the nastiness” in Washington.

Mr. Katko teamed up recently with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat, for one such call, in which he broke with one of his own party’s leaders, rejecting a proposal by the top Senate Republican to allow states to go bankrupt rather than provide a federal lifeline.

“I’m going to continue to work across the aisle,” Mr. Katko told voters, pointing to his relationship with Ms. Gillibrand. “I totally disagree with what Mitch McConnell said-- that’s a great example.”

...“People are going to make a judgment here: Who do they want to give the responsibility of governing to, given what has just occurred?” said David Winston, a Republican pollster who works with the House Republican Conference. “Did you try to do the right thing? People want to know how their elected representatives are trying to solve this.”

...From his porch in St. Joseph, Mich., Mr. Upton unveiled a plan that aims to modernize the nation’s health care system to prepare for future pandemics. His nightly Facebook dispatches have drawn responses that offer a glimpse of the political balance he is struggling to strike.

“Not giving the President Trump administration any credit are you Fred,” Jerry Litke commented on a recent post that omitted any mention of Mr. Trump.

But Patricia Resetar had a complaint of her own about the same dispatch, demanding that Mr. Upton answer for the administration’s failure to deploy broad testing throughout the country.

“Where is all the testing?” she wrote. “Where is it, and why aren’t you holding this administration accountable?”

Mr. Upton said in an interview that he was “not afraid to give the president credit on a variety of issues” or to “be against him when I think he’s wrong.”

That would be never. Upton, like Katko, talks a good game but when push comes to shove, both are Trump bootlickers, pretending to be otherwise. Donald Bacon in Omaha doesn't even pretend to be moderate even though he's in a swing district that Obama won in 2008 and that Trump look by just 2 points in 2016. The progressive candidate running for the seat, Kara Eastman noted that where other Republicans are savvy enough to at least recognize the dilemma they're in, Bacon doesn't seem to even recognize Trump's failures in responding to the pandemic. "Bacon," she told me, "has doubled-down on his support for President Trump by echoing his policies and fully embracing even his most extreme ideas, while at the same time failing to support relief funding for the largest city in his own district."

Trumpist Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the eastern Washington incumbent, is going to have to face grassroots progressive Chris Armitage in November. As he said, "Cathy McMorris Rodgers votes with Trump 95% of the time; I don't even know married couples that agree that often. Cathy's greatest strength has always been her ability to quietly yet shamelessly act against the interest of American's while maintaining a low profile."

Mike Siegel, another central Texas progressive, read the Times piece and said that "It's too late for McCaul-- he’s hitched himself to Trump for better or worse. Backing the Family Separation policy when he was Homeland Security Chair; running interference on impeachment; leading the xenophobia playbook on COVID-19, and blaming the Chinese people instead of his President. Maybe McCaul wishes he could present a reasonable, independent image, but he’s already made his bed. This November, unless Trump has a surge in popularity in the moderate Houston suburbs, McCaul will be backing his bags, returning to his Austin mansion instead of Washington, DC. He will have no one but himself to blame."

McCaul can't even pretend he's anything BUT a Trump puppet

Two Blue America Candidates Speak Out On Healthcare: Dana Balter And Tom Guild

The pandemic has forced progressive candidates to change their means of reaching voters. David Wasserman, writing yesterday for the Cook Report, noted "As the COVID-19 outbreak forces more states to delay spring primary and runoff dates, it's had another, more subtle effect: it's all but frozen the House recruitment process in place and curtailed fundraising, benefiting incumbents and candidates who had already built large war chests and disadvantaging recent entrants." It's especially helpful to conservatives-- on both sides of the aisle. Dana Balter is battling Trump boot-licker John Katko, who had already raised $1,545,336 by the December 31 FEC reporting deadline. Balter's haul-- before the pandemic struck-- was $519,225. Similarly, Oklahoma City Blue Dog Kendra Horn-- a conservative who votes with Trump more than nearly any Democrat in Congress-- had raised $2,277,970 both the end of the quarter and before her progressive primary challenger, Tom Guild jumped into the race.

This week, both Balter and Guild worked to get their core messages on healthcare out. Guild sent an e-mail to Oklahoma City voters. "In this time of national crisis," be began, "we must achieve a degree of isolation, interrupted by an occasional trip to the grocery store, to the pharmacy, and to fill up our vehicles with gas. We do our best to care for others at a distance by contributing to charities and via social media. During this stark and sober time let us reflect on how to improve America as we eventually resume some semblance of normalcy. This emergency is partially a result of a health care system, that really isn’t an integrated system, but a patchwork of institutions and industries focused on maximizing profits. As we transition to universal healthcare in America via Medicare for All, we will put in place an integrated system that is not profit-driven but focused on the health and wellbeing of every American. Deductibles and co-pays will be phased out and the per capita spending for healthcare will very likely be reduced." He continued:

“A government-run, single-payer system may be run with just enough resources for normal times... but unlike the patchwork, for-profit ‘system’ we have, a publicly run system can be ramped up much more quickly to meet crises such as this one.” (Paul Crist)

We face the current crisis woefully unprepared to meet the tremendous challenge before us. We can learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to not be placed in this situation again. As the only candidate for Congress in Oklahoma’s Fifth Congressional District embracing universal health care coverage by adopting MFA, it makes a difference which candidate we nominate and that we elect to represent our district.

Stay safe. Keep your distance. Keep the faith. Take care of yourself and others.

If you would like to financially support our effort to achieve systemic and meaningful change for the future you can do that [by clicking on the Medicare-For-All thermometer on the right].


Vote like your life and health and that of your fellow Americans is at stake.

Yours in the cause,

Tom Guild

Balter was more fortunate, as the Syracuse Post Standard decided to publish her commentary with its message to NY-24 voters and it was able to reach far more voters and potential contributors.

We’re experiencing a crisis unlike anything in our living memory; the toll on our health, lives, and economy will be immense. We all need to do our part to keep our communities safe and we need our leaders to step up and take action to limit the pandemic’s impact.

I have talked with countless people across central and western New York whose lives are being turned upside down. There was the friend who found an elderly couple in their car in the grocery store parking lot, crying because they needed food but terrified to go inside and be exposed to COVID-19. Then there was the owner of a 45-year-old family business who’s afraid it might not open again. Then there was the man recently diagnosed with stage 4 kidney cancer for whom the world is now unimaginably dangerous. These heartbreaking stories make clear that we must do everything we can to curb the effects of this crisis.

As individuals, we need to take social distancing seriously and closely follow expert guidelines from the CDC. Thankfully, as New Yorkers we have Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s steady leadership. His navigation of this near-impossible situation is extraordinary and will save lives and livelihoods. He exemplifies what we need from our leaders in this moment: calm, confidence and competence.

The governor’s example is made all the more remarkable by a complete absence of leadership from President Donald Trump. His failure to lead us through this crisis is staggering. At every stage, his response has made the situation far worse than it needs to be.

Trump ignored early warnings from his own intelligence agencies that the COVID-19 pandemic was coming. Despite knowing how bad this situation would get, for months he minimized the threat to the public and refused to take necessary action to prepare for the impending danger. The president has continued to downplay the seriousness of this crisis, last Tuesday suggesting that things will be back to normal in a matter of a couple of weeks while health experts have agreed that this will take months to address. Most disturbing is that he actively spreads misinformation about COVID-19, which is incredibly dangerous.

The idea that this is the leadership this country needs is not only absurd, it’s dangerous. And yet, this is the man Rep. John Katko endorses. This is the man John Katko insists has made us better off. This is the man John Katko tells us is the leader we need for another four years.

Trump’s calling himself a wartime president. Would a wartime president leave generals without stocked bases? While Trump dithers, hospital administrators and doctors, left without ventilators and personal protective equipment (PPE), are facing unimaginable ethical decisions about whom they should save and whom they should let die. Absurd. Would a wartime president send soldiers into battle without helmets and body armor? While Trump dithers, we are leaving our front-line healthcare workers unprotected without PPE. So we are sewing face masks at home to donate to hospitals and clinics and nurses are wearing garbage bags because “it’s better than nothing.” Dangerous.

Government must prioritize the health and safety of our people. The president should immediately use the Defense Production Act to direct companies to manufacture ventilators and PPE and distribute that equipment. This is necessary to address two dire circumstances: 1. there isn’t an adequate supply of this vital equipment, and 2. currently states are competing with each other for access to the scarce supplies available.

Thankfully, Congress has turned its attention to addressing the economic fallout of this public health crisis. The response must include substantial cash assistance to individuals and families. We have to ensure speedy arrival of funds and recognize that a one-time payment is unlikely to be enough. We should institute a freeze on all mortgage payments, rent, debt collection, and student loan payments without interest or penalty. We must give massive support to small businesses to help them survive the weeks and months ahead. We do not need to bail out giant corporations; they have huge profits and bankruptcy protections that will see them through. Any assistance that is given to corporations must be contingent on: no bonuses or dividends for the duration of the loan; no stock buybacks; no lay-offs; honoring of collective bargaining agreements, a $15 minimum wage.

We’re dealing with the biggest public health crisis we’ve seen in a century and the resulting economic crisis. Both have been made worse by a stunning failure of leadership by the president, whom John Katko endorses. We have to rise above that failure in leadership. And we can. We have a long way to go but if we come together, we will get through this crisis. We all know that we are better than Donald Trump and now is the time to prove it.

Wendell Potter, was formerly vice-president for corporate communications at Cigna, a crooked insurance outfit. Today he's president of Business for Medicare for All. Yesterday The Guardian published a chilling piece he wrote, Millions of Americans are about to lose their health insurance in a pandemic. "The tragic effects of our battle with the novel coronavirus are seemingly endless. But arguably the most mind-blowing is this: the very pandemic that threatens to infect and kill millions is simultaneously causing many to also lose their health coverage at their gravest time of need." And he explained how and why:

Here’s how: the virus has caused a public health crisis so severe that people have been forced to stay home, causing businesses to shutter and lay off workers. And with roughly half of Americans getting their health insurance from their employer, these layoffs mean not only losing their income but also their medical coverage. In other words, just as our need for medical care skyrockets in the face of a global pandemic, fewer will have health insurance or be able to afford it. According to one recent report, the cost of treatment for Covid-19 can run around $35,000. As the patient in the report exclaimed: “I was pretty sticker-shocked. I personally don’t know anybody who has that kind of money.”

So, how did we get to such a dire place? Many will sadly lose their jobs over the coming weeks-- with one estimate projecting as many as 30%. And as they do, Americans are about to learn something horrifying: how irrational and irresponsible it is for so many to be dependent on employers for health insurance. Take it from me. I’m a former health insurance executive who once profited from this system. It’s time for it to stop.

America needs to finally get out of the business of linking health coverage to job status. Even in better times, this arrangement was a bad idea from a health perspective. Most Americans whose families depend on their employers for coverage are just a layoff away from being uninsured. And now, when many businesses are shutting down and considering layoffs, it’s a public health disaster. Across the country we’re seeing reports of layoffs in almost all industries. As we approach a global recession, some analysts suggest that a million or more US workers will lose their jobs in April alone. Consider what this means for health care in this country.

We’ve seen this before. During the last big recession, researchers at Cornell University found that 9.3 million Americans lost their health insurance between 2007 and 2009. Why? As people lost work, their employer-provided insurance went away. During this time, roughly six in 10 Americans who lost their jobs became uninsured. And this problem compounds itself. If the reason you lost your health insurance is that you no longer have steady employment, how are you now going to be able to afford monthly premiums for some other private health care plan? This problem becomes particularly acute when you consider that premiums for health plans sold on exchanges are projected to soar, as well, due to “unexpected Covid-19 costs.”

It’s worth noting that even in good times, the employer-based model fails to cover enough of us, with the number of Americans covered through an employer steadily dropping in general. Since 1999, the percentage of those with job-based coverage has declined by nine points. And it most certainly will drop like a rock in the coming weeks and months.

It’s now clear that this system cannot handle our current reality. With so many Americans sadly on the verge of unemployment, the number that will lose health coverage will be crushing. As we rebuild our country’s economic base and reimagine the roles various industries play in our new future, we must also begin a difficult conversation about health care. If we’re dependent on jobs in order to have it, a lot of us will be left out in the cold. And at a time in our nation’s history where more will need quality care than ever before, the human cost will simply be too much to bear.

Reminder: the men and women you'll find by clicking on the ActBlue thermometer above will take you to a list of candidates-- including but not limited to Tom Guild and Dana Balter-- campaigning on Medicare-for-All.

Dana Balter and Tom Guild

A Gift To Democrats Running Against GOP Incumbents

Trump has demanded his congressional puppets start endorsing him during the impeachment trial. The optics may seem good for him, but they look dreadful for the Republican incumbents who are falling in line. Take John Katko, a Syracuse-area conservative still making a half-assed attempt to try to pretend to be a "moderate." He represents the only blue district (D+3) in the country that the DCCC managed to lose last year.

Yesterday, Katko's progressive challenger, Dana Balter, shredded him for formally endorsing Trump's reelection bid. "Congressman John Katko," she wrote to New Yorkers in Onondaga, Wayne, Cayuga and Oswego counties, "is endorsing Donald Trump because he believes that Trump’s made our country better than it was four years ago. He’s endorsing a man who is trying to rip healthcare away from 130 million people with pre-existing conditions. He’s endorsing a man who blew a $2 trillion hole in our national debt for tax giveaways to the ultra-wealthy and corporations on the backs of working families. He’s endorsing a man who is trying to slash hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. He’s endorsing a man who stokes fear, hatred, and division to maintain power. He’s endorsing a man who started and continues to escalate a reckless trade war that has done massive harm to our small businesses and our family farms. He’s endorsing a man who violated the Constitution, disgraced his oath of office, abused his power, and broke the law by extorting a foreign government to interfere in our elections. And John Katko believes this man has made us better off than we were four years ago? That tells us an awful lot about John Katko’s vision for our future."

Across the country, in eastern Washington, progressive Democrat Chris Armitage, the most recent candidate to be endorsed by Blue America, is voicing similar sentiments about the lockstep Trumpist positions his opponent, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, keeps taking. He told me yesterday that she "continues to be in the shameful position of defending the Trump brand. Beyond betraying our ideals of truth, liberty, and justice, Trump is also just a garbage brand. Trump is his own greatest and worst product and my opponent is all in."

Last cycle, Trump dragged himself down to Missouri's 8th congressional district to campaign for two total puppets, Rep. Jason Smith and the-AG, now U.S. Senator Josh Hawley. There's no doubt whatsoever Smith will be endorsing Trump imminently. The progressive Democrat opposing Smith is Kathy Ellis. "News just came out that Missouri added 47,000 new union members in the last year," she told me, "remarkable considering the state's attack on unions. To us, that indicates that people aren't happy-- typically, folks won't join unions if they're pleased with their working conditions. In my district, we've seen tariffs devastate small farmers, and wealthy farmers are receiving special treatment from Rep. Smith through government payouts and financial assistance. Yet, people in the district are suffering-- farms are underwater, farmers are committing suicide at high rates, and folks are suffering from lack of healthcare access. Smith acts ignorant of this-- in fact, just a few weeks ago, he said that the district and the country's economy is doing so well that we should cut back on so-called entitlement programs, such as food stamps. The 8th district is suffering as one of the poorest districts in the country, and Smith remains a rubber stamp to Trump's policies."

In southwest Michigan (MI-06) Republican incumbent Fred Upton can't decide if he's running or another term or not. He says he'll make an announcement next week. The most current polling in the district shows he would have a very tough time being reelected-- a job favorability rating of just 20% with 59% of respondents giving him an unfavorable rating. Trump's recent remarks about being willing to make cuts to Medicare and Social Security aren't going to help a lockstep Trump supporter like Upton--  not in a district where early 16% of the population is over the age of 65 and with almost another 14% in the 55-64 bracket. On top of that, Trump's most recent efforts to roll back environmental protections are particularly relevant in a district where the shoreline is being further eroded by the day, and where residents have to worry about pollutants like PFAS in their drinking water. I asked state Rep. Jon Hoadley, the progressive Democrat running for the seat-- and a big supporter of Social Security, Medicare and environmental protections if Upton is feeling the pain yet. "Trump's policies are speaking much louder than his words," he told me. "Whether his policies are hurting farmers or seniors, student loan borrowers or people who want clean water, people in southwest Michigan are looking for a President and Congress that will fight for us and our values."

In Iowa's 4th district, the situation is somewhat different. The Republican incumbent, neo-fascist and racist Steve King, is even less popular than Trump and it's hard to tell which one is hurting the other more. J.D. Scholten, the progressive Democrat in the race, told us that "Steve King continues to back Trump 100% despite the fact that his reckless trade has cost Iowa’s 4th district $558 million-- more money than any other district in America-- and his Administration has abused the Renewable Fuel Standard to benefit big oil companies at the expense of rural jobs and our planet. They both revel in targeting immigrants and the press and further widen the divides of our country. King will continue to put his own selfish ideology over our district and his party over our country."

Central Texas Republican, Roger Williams, is a typical Trump enabler. "Roger Williams has happily cheered Trump on for every step of his egregious administration," said Heidi Sloan, one of the progressive Democrats taking him on this year, "and his cheerleading has earned Williams Trump's endorsement. Williams is not a leader-- he's not a big player in the GOP, he's not the guy the Republicans call to do their big dirty work, he's just keeping a comfortable seat warm in a district that was gerrymandered for him personally. He and Trump are bosom buddies because they have so much in common-- neither has ever experienced a day of hard work, both are millionaires who inherited their wealth from their fathers, and both of their careers are made possible solely because they deliberately mislead working class people into thinking our class interests align with theirs. While Williams is counting on a Trump endorsement to save his seat in November, we're hustling every day to build a ground game strong enough to take this district back for the working class."

How Badly Will Their Votes Against Impeaching Trump Cost Swing District Republicans?

Fore! by Nancy Ohanian

Michael Scherer, writing for the Washington Post Wednesday, reported that "When the dust clears, the result is most likely to look more like a draw than a victory, say political strategists from both sides." He quoted Democratic pollster Geoff Garin: "I am confident that not a single Democrat anywhere in the country next year will lose their seat because they voted for impeachment." And he quoted Republican pollster Glen Bolger: "I am not convinced that anybody is in significant danger but the small number that represent the other team’s area, and there are a lot fewer than there used to be." I disagree-- with both of them.

I suppose that an argument can be made that John Katko (R-NY), Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rodney Davis (R-IL) were already among the walking dead. But the argument is, at best, a stretch if not spurious. All three swing district Republicans are putting up an intense fight to hold onto their seats, and despite voting against impeachment, each is raising huge war chests. Katko has already raised this $1,182,000 cycle. Davis has raised $1,504,629. And Upton, who is independently wealthy, has raised $962,016 and is spending as though his political life depends on it-- which it does.

Tuesday we looked at polling from their districts showing that most voters are less likely to vote from them specifically because of their impeachment votes. Change Research, which did the polling, asserted in their analysis that "if these Republicans are hoping to take on enough of Trump’s water today to make it through their GOP primary, and rely on their approval ratings on the economy to survive another general election, they should take a look at their dismal approval ratings on voters’ top priority, health care costs. Just 37% approve of Rodney Davis’ handling on health care costs, just 32% approve of John Katko’s handing, and a dismal 26% approve of Fred Upton’s handling of health care costs... It is clear that voters, even in these more conservative-leaning districts, believe that the President’s conduct is wildly inappropriate and worthy of the investigation underway. Regardless of their feelings about impeachment, majorities in these districts believe that Trump has engaged in conduct that will ultimately provide the basis for impeachment articles-- including abusing the power of his office (52%, 47% strongly), withholding military funds to pressure another country to investigate a political rival (52%), putting his personal political interests before the good of the country (51%, 47% strongly), and engaging in corruption (51%). Majorities also believe he has intimidated a witness (53%), undermined the rule of law (51%), and even committed crimes (51%). About half of voters in these GOP-held districts already support impeachment without reservation, while just three-in-ten voters oppose impeachment and think Trump did nothing wrong. This leaves over one-in-five who are still impressionable on the impeachment question. These impeachment persuadables include:

• he 14% who currently oppose impeachment because they “haven’t seen enough evidence to know if his conduct was wrong,”

•  the 6% who believe “his conduct was wrong, but it is not impeachable,”

• the 1% who think “his conduct was impeachable, but impeachment will divide the country 
and the public should vote to remove him in the next election,” and

• the 2% who are undecided on impeachment. 


Change Research emphasized that Katko, Upton and Davis "have few convincing arguments in their arsenal. The argument that 'Donald Trump’s actions are very troubling, but with an election coming next year, Congress should not overturn 63 million votes by impeaching the President now' was not convincing at all to a stunning 55% majority of voters, including 36% of Republicans. A similar argument that says 'Donald Trump may have engaged in wrongdoing, but it is not worthy of impeachment, which will divide our country and stop progress on critical issues like health care and trade deals' was not convincing at all to 52% of voters, including 30% of Republicans. Also unconvincing is an argument that 'President Trump was right to ask his lawyer to investigate corruption in Ukraine. Ukraine has had it out for Trump since the 2016 election,' which was not convincing at all to nearly half of voters. This conspiracy theory seems to have some traction, however, with the Republican base. While 83% of Democrats and 46% of independents give this a 0 on a 1-10 scale (where 0 means it is not convincing at all and 10 means it is very convincing), 47% of Republicans say it is a very convincing argument against impeachment."

Unfortunately for Katko, Upton and Davis, NY-24, MI-06 and IL-13 don't have enough Republican voters to win an election without substantial support from independents, who overwhelmingly reject their arguments for not voting to impeach. Change Research concluded that "A majority of voters in these key districts think what Trump did was wrong and, once they hear the facts, are less likely to support Members of Congress who are opposed to the impeachment inquiry. The message is clear: these representatives should put politics aside during impeachment and do their job."

So will it cost them? Yes, with one caveat. Their Democratic opponents have to make the case against them next summer and fall leading up to the election. Jon Hoadley (MI-06) and Dana Balter (NY-24) are talented political leaders. I have less faith in the DCCC's establishment hack running in IL-13.

It was no surprise that Donald J. Bacon voted against impeaching Donald J. Trump. They're couldn't be more similar and each supports the other. Omaha progressive congressional candidate Kara Eastman noted that "Majorities of people nationally and in NE-02 recognize that Trump did something very wrong and abused his power. While White House propaganda and media bothsides-ism has somewhat tempered the number of people willing to commit to impeach-and-remove, the fact is that Republicans like Don Bacon will seal their political fates with their vote against impeachment across the nation. It's about checks and balances pure and simple."

Liam O'Mara's opponent in Riverside County, Ken Calvert, is a lockstep Trump puppet and no one there, let alone in DC, was shocked when he voted against impeachment. Liam, a history professor, pointed out that "Calvert tried, on the eve of an impeachment vote, to complain that polling did not show voters in favour of impeachment-- saying the Dems had 'failed to make their case.' Not only is this false, it is irrelevant, as any popular action can, in fact, still be found illegal. I can think of quite a few. Impeachment is not a popularity contest. It is part of our system of balanced co-equal branches, meant to ensure lawless officials do not go checked. It involves weighing evidence and deciding a question of legal and constitutional principle. And if Calvert is so unfit to lead on matters of law, and must instead follow the opinion polls, he has no business being in public office."


Now... voting for impeachment may hurt a few useless, worthless Blue Dogs in the reddest of districts, Democrats who tend to vote with the GOP on just about everything. I'd guess Kendra Horn in Oklahoma City and maybe Joe Cunningham in Charlestown, South Carolina and Collin Peterson in western Minnesota. Or maybe the independents in the districts will admire them for taking a tough vote and stickling with their convictions. I suspect it will work with Cunningham and Peterson. 

But the most endangered Democrat is Maine's incredible disappointment, Jared Golden, who campaigned as a progressive and then voted as an arch-conservative all cycle. He was so pathetic on the impeachment vote-- voting for one article and opposing another-- that I think plenty of his 2018 supporters will abandon him next year. "'Standing in the middle of the road is dangerous,' Margaret Thatcher once explained, because you can get hit by cars going both directions. That’s what Golden is experiencing today. Liberals are angry. 'If my congressman, Jared Golden, votes for only one article of impeachment, I will work with all my might to see him defeated next year,' tweeted Stephen King, the best-selling mystery novelist. And Republicans... certainly aren’t placated. 'Golden’s vote to impeach President Trump proves he’d rather stand with the socialist Democrats than Maine voters,' said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Michael McAdams. Golden’s vote will not impact the outcome... But the fact that Golden stands alone says a great deal about not just impeachment but the political era we find ourselves in. Intensifying polarization and tribalism are forcing members to pick a side-- and fully own their decision one way or another-- in ways that used to be much easier to avoid."

In the Iowa U.S. Senate race, I think Admiral (Ret) Michael Franken has what it takes to make the case in regard to Joni Ernst's refusal to seriously consider impeaching Trump. "Republican senators," he told me on Wednesday, "face a Sophie’s Choice: An acquittal will only embolden Trump and cause the GOP even more trouble with suburban, female and independent voters. But if Republicans remove Trump from office, he will just run again in 2020 and take down every GOP incumbent along the way. Republican Senators have to decide whether they want their political destruction coming from outside or inside their ranks. Neither will be pretty."

Trump's Toxicity Has Wrecked The Chances For Republicans Like Rodney Davis, John Katko And Fred Upton To Be Reelected

Remember when I told you that Change Research is this cycle's polling outfit to pay attention to? I was in heaven seeing their latest-- surveys in 3 battleground congressional districts, Michigan's 6th (Fred Upton), New York's 24th (John Katko) and Illinois' 13th (Rodney Davis). All the incumbents are Republicans and all the districts are swingy and flippable. Two, MI-06 and NY-24, have solid progressive challengers, respectively Jon Hoadley and Dana Balter) and the other has a fairly worthless Cheri Bustos/DCCC careerist who stands for nothing at all and is so ashamed of the Democratic Party that she has no issues on her campaign site, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan.

Although IL-13 is now rated R+3, Obama won it convincingly in 2008 and was virtually tied in 2012. Hillary, exactly the wrong kind of candidate for a district like this, lost by 5 points to Trump in 2016. In the primaries, Bernie won resoundingly, showing what Democrats want there-- change not status quo, so of course the Democratic establishment gave them putrid example of the status quo-- Londrigan-- as their candidate. She lost. And she's back again. There are 14 counties in the district, though most of the votes come out of just 5-- Champaign, Madison, Macon, Sangamon and McLean. This table shows how Bernie, Hillary and Trump did on primary day:

• Champaign- Bernie- 20,581 (65.9%), Hillary- 10,542 (33.8%), Trump- 7,645
• Madison- Bernie- 18,723 (54.5%%), Hillary- 15,332 (44.6%), Trump- 15,588
• Macon- Bernie- 4,990 (45.2%), Hillary- 5,945 (53.8%), Trump- 6,655
• Sangamon- Bernie- 10,365 (52.6%), Hillary- 9,255 (46.9%), Trump- 11,930
• McLean- Bernie- 12,936 (62.4%%), Hillary- 7,695 (37.1%), Trump- 8,653
• Macoupin- Bernie- 3,552 (55.0%), Hillary- 2,770 (42.9%), Trump- 3,527
• Christian- Bernie- 1,526 (51.2%), Hillary- 1,395 (46.8%), Trump- 2,392
• Montgomery- Bernie- 1,266 (49.3%), Hillary- 1,241 (48.3%), Trump- 2,269
• Jersey- Bernie- 1,069 (54.5%), Hillary- 853 (43.5%), Trump- 1,902
• Piatt- Bernie- 1,016 (55.5%), Hillary- 787 (43.0%), Trump- 1,496
• De Witt- Bernie- 659 (53.3%), Hillary- 561 (45.4%), Trump- 1,577
• Greene- Bernie- 530 (49.4%), Hillary- 503 (46.9%), Trump- 1,014
• Calhoun- Bernie- 503 (50.7%), Hillary- 446 (45.0%), Trump- 329
• Bond- Bernie- 858 (53.4%), Hillary- 718 (44.7%), Trump- 1,102

Change Research explained that the goals of the 3 surveys "were to understand how closely voters were tracking Trump’s Ukraine scandal, the House Intelligence Committee hearings, what evidence and arguments for or against impeachment are most resonant, whether voters recognize the seriousness Trump’s actions, and how voters expect their member of Congress to hold Trump accountable." It's the final goal that most interests us here but I encourage you to read the whole analysis. These are the PVIs of the three districts:

• IL-13: R+3
• NY-24: D+3
• MI-06: R+4

In their intro, Change Research explains that Katko, Upton and Davis "enter 2020 with exceptionally low favorability ratings and with majorities disapproving of their handling of the impeachment inquiry and their record when it comes to holding President Trump accountable. A majority of voters in these key Republican districts think what Trump did was wrong and, once they hear the facts, are less likely to support Members of Congress who oppose the impeachment inquiry. Specifically, majorities express concern about facts established during the impeachment inquiry and believe that the primary grounds for impeachment have been established-- including believing Trump abused the power of his office, withheld military funds to pressure a foreign country to investigate a political rival, and put his personal political interests before the good of the country. The survey also found that voters will not reward Republicans for their opposition to impeachment: just 38% say they are more likely to support a member of Congress who opposes impeachment at the end of the survey, while a 54% majority says they are less likely to support an impeachment opponent after hearing arguments on both sides. The message is clear: voters in these districts believe their representatives should put politics aside during impeachment and do their job."

I. Republican incumbents are unpopular and voters believe they are not doing enough to hold Trump accountable

The vulnerability of these Republican members of Congress is reflected in their favorability ratings, which start from a net negative position in each district. John Katko is 8 points net unfavorable and Rodney Davis is 10 points net unfavorable. Fred Upton, is a remarkable 40 points net unfavorable. In particular, majorities in these swing districts-- districts where it still pays to appear independent-- disapprove of the job their congressman is doing standing up to President Trump and holding President Trump accountable. Majorities also disapprove of their congressman’s handling of the impeachment inquiry.

But if these Republicans are hoping to take on enough of Trump’s water today to make it through their GOP primary, and rely on their approval ratings on the economy to survive another general election, they should take a look at their dismal approval ratings on voters’ top priority, health care costs. Just 37% approve of Rodney Davis’ handling on health care costs, just 32% approve of John Katko’s handing, and a dismal 26% approve of Fred Upton’s handling of health care costs.

II. Voters are closely tracking the impeachment inquiry

After the House Intelligence Committee’s hearings, seven-in-ten voters have heard or seen a lot about the impeachment inquiry, and they are very concerned by what they have learned.

...It is clear that voters, even in these more conservative-leaning districts, believe that the President’s conduct is wildly inappropriate and worthy of the investigation underway. Regardless of their feelings about impeachment, majorities in these districts believe that Trump has engaged in conduct that will ultimately provide the basis for impeachment articles - including abusing the power of his office (52%, 47% strongly), withholding military funds to pressure another country to investigate a political rival (52%), putting his personal political interests before the good of the country (51%, 47% strongly), and engaging in corruption (51%). Majorities also believe he has intimidated a witness (53%), undermined the rule of law (51%), and even committed crimes (51%).

III. GOP arguments are less effective than those of impeachment supporters at moving ‘impeachment persuadables’

About half of voters in these GOP-held districts already support impeachment without reservation, while just three-in-ten voters oppose impeachment and think Trump did nothing wrong. This leaves over one-in-five who are still impressionable on the impeachment question.

... As the impeachment proceedings progress, these Republican members of Congress have few convincing arguments in their arsenal. The argument that “Donald Trump’s actions are very troubling, but with an election coming next year, Congress should not overturn 63 million votes by impeaching the President now” was ‘not convincing at all’ to a stunning 55% majority of voters, including 36% of Republicans. A similar argument that says “Donald Trump may have engaged in wrongdoing, but it is not worthy of impeachment, which will divide our country and stop progress on critical issues like health care and trade deals” was ‘not convincing at all’ to 52% of voters, including 30% of Republicans.


Also unconvincing is an argument that “President Trump was right to ask his lawyer to investigate corruption in Ukraine. Ukraine has had it out for Trump since the 2016 election,” which was ‘not convincing at all’ to nearly half of voters. This conspiracy theory seems to have some traction, however, with the Republican base. While 83% of Democrats and 46% of independents give this a 0 on a 1-10 scale (where 0 means it is not convincing at all and 10 means it is very convincing), 47% of Republicans say it is a ‘very convincing’ argument against impeachment.


 ...The good news for impeachment supporters is that their arguments for impeachment are stronger by comparison. The strongest arguments say that the evidence demonstrates that Trump’s conduct has reached an established bar for impeachment-- which is what the Judiciary Committee was attempting to demonstrate to the public in last week’s hearings.

An argument that the evidence shows “Trump abused the power of this office for personal gain, an impeachable offense in the Constitution, and in so doing undermined our national security, to the benefit of the Russians, by withholding taxpayer funded military aid to Ukraine” was a ‘very convincing’ justification for impeachment for nearly 4-in-10 voters. As convincing was an argument that the evidence establishes Trump “solicited a bribe, an offense listed in the Constitution as one worthy of impeachment, by withholding taxpayer-funded military aid and a White House visit to pressure Ukraine to give something of value to his re-election.”

A majority of these voters acknowledge that Trump has abused the power of his office, withheld military aid to pressure an ally to investigate a political rival, put his personal political interests above the good of the country, and more. Majorities find the evidence established in the investigation concerning, and majorities disapprove of the way these Republican congressmen are handling the inquiry and their approach to Trump.

...After hearing from both sides on impeachment, a majority of voters in these GOP-leaning districts are now willing to punish these GOP members for their unwillingness to participate in the impeachment inquiry, with 54% saying they are less likely to support a member of Congress that opposes the impeachment inquiry. That includes 54% of voters in IL-13, 53% of voters in MI-6, and 56% of voters in NY-24.

IV. Conclusion

A majority of voters in these key districts think what Trump did was wrong and, once they hear the facts, are less likely to support Members of Congress who are opposed to the impeachment inquiry. The message is clear: these representatives should put politics aside during impeachment and do their job.

Are Republicans Slitting Their Own Throats By Echoing Trump On Impeachment?

Coup d'état by Nancy Ohanian

Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin made an important point in regard to the impeachment inquiry and the Trump enablers yesterday: "One of the critical components of this story is the absolute moral degeneration of the Republican Party. They’re behaving like members of a religious cult." What were Republicans saying about Trump's outrageous tweets in the middle of Ambassador Yovanovitch's dignified and compelling testimony before the House Intelligence Committee yesterday? Not much, other than a few lackeys and clowns who actually defended him, particularly Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Mark Meadows of North Carolina. As for Blue Dog Jeff Van Drew (NJ), he's still waiting for the Republican talking points so he can read them again. A team of Politico Capitol Hill reporters wrote that it was like duck soup among House Republicans. Although members on both sides of the aisle were stunned to see Trump’s disparaging and threatening tweet, Republicans ran for their lives when asked for comment by the press. Texas Republican Mike Conaway came closer to rebuking Trump as anyway-- "It’s not something I would do"-- but most of them punted. "Several Republicans on the Intelligence Committee," wrote the Politico team, "dodged the topic entirely. Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) refused to answer questions about the tweets as he ducked on to the House floor, while Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) quickly whipped out his cell phone and began talking into it, even though his home screen was visible and there was no call in progress. And Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told Politico: 'I don't discuss committee business.'" He actually does... all the time.

Some Democratic congressional candidates know how to use this kind of posturing by the Trumpists better than others. On Tuesday, the Post Standard published an OpEd by Dana Balter, the progressive Democrat running for the congressional seat in the Syracuse area currently held by Trump enabler John Katko.

Our democracy and our national security are in the midst of a very serious crisis. We need our leaders in Washington, D.C., to stand up for the rule of law and defend our Constitution and our country. Unfortunately, once again, Congressman John Katko is failing to do his job, instead preferring to play the role of President Donald Trump’s defense attorney.

The facts are clear. In an egregious abuse of power, Trump asked a foreign government to interfere in our election in exchange for critical military aid. He admitted doing this. The memo of his phone call with the Ukrainian president corroborates this. Text messages between Trump’s diplomats corroborate this. While talking to reporters in front of cameras on the South Lawn of the White House, the president asked Ukraine and China to interfere in the 2020 election and investigate his political opponent. Now, career diplomatic and national security officials and even Trump’s own appointees like Gordon Sondland are corroborating what’s been apparent all along: Donald Trump extorted a foreign government, withholding U.S. security assistance to force Ukraine to investigate his personal political rival.

The president’s actions undermine our national security and our democratic values. They are an abuse of power. They violate the law. And this is exactly what the framers of our Constitution had in mind when they created the power of impeachment. Their chief concerns were foreign interference in American affairs and a president who would use his office for personal gain.

Congress has a constitutional obligation to protect our nation and serve as a check on the president. They must hold him accountable if and when he violates his oath of office, poses a danger to our country, or breaks the law. By soliciting foreign governments to interfere in our election, Trump has done all of these things.

While it is not only appropriate but imperative for the House to conduct an impeachment inquiry, Congressman Kakto voted “no” on investigating these matters. In fact, he will not even acknowledge the truth that’s right in front of us. He denies the evidence that we are seeing with our own eyes and hearing with our own ears. There are two possibilities: either Katko doesn’t understand the situation, or he’s putting partisan politics ahead of the truth. Either way, Katko is failing the people of central and western New York. He’s prioritizing giving political cover to Trump over doing what’s right for us and for the country.

While we are facing a major national security threat and the very fundamentals of our democratic institutions are at stake, Congressman Katko is playing partisan political games and putting his party ahead of our country. By refusing to hold the president accountable, the congressman is encouraging further abuse of power and sanctioning this behavior for future presidents.

Our democracy is precious. It’s imperfect but it’s beautiful. And for centuries has been a beacon of hope to the world. In part, because of its imperfections. Because we are the embodiment of an idea. That no matter what our failings, we can strive-- as individuals and as a country-- for truth, for freedom, for justice. And it is in the striving that we attain grace. It is in the striving that we fulfill the American promise. This is the essence of who we are.

We each have a responsibility to protect and defend the values and institutions at the heart of our democracy. And we are called upon, at this moment in history, to rise. To rise above partisanship. To rise above personal gain. To rise above fear.

Congressman Katko’s unwillingness to rise to this moment is a stunning betrayal of his oath of office and of the people he is meant to serve. Congressman Katko: I am a constituent. I am a voter. I am an American. I call on you to do what’s right instead of what’s easy. I call on you to put our country first. I call on you to uphold your oath. This is a time for moral courage. History is watching.