You Think New Jersey Is Blue Now? Just Wait 'Til After The Midterms

Today New Jersey's congressional delegation is made up of 7 Democrats and 5 Republicans. Not one of the Democrats is being seriously challenged for reelection-- in fact two, Bill Pacsrell and have no opponents at all. Two of the Republicans, Frank LoBiondo and Don Payne, have no opponent at all. Other Democrats have only pro forma opposition. For example, Don Norcross' GOP opponent, Paul Dilks had raised just $2,300 and Albio Sires' opponent, Republican John Muniz, raised no money and put $250 of his own into his "campaign."

Two of the Republican incumbents, Frank LoBiondo and Rodney Frelinghuysen, are retiring and their seats are likely to flip to Democrats, respectively Jeff Van Drew and Mikie Sherrill.There are also 2 Republicans, Tom MacArthur and Leonard Lance, who are on the verge of losing their re-election bids to Democrats Andy Kim and Tom Malinowski. The only Republican likely to retain his seat is Chris Smith. So... in January the delegation goes from 7 Democrats and 5 Republicans to 11 Democrats and 1 Republican.

One race where the Republican is desperately trying to hold on is in the 7th district, which goes from the Pennsylvania border almost to the Atlantic ocean and includes parts of 6 counties. A third of the voters are from Somerset County, a quarter are from Union County and nearly a fifth live in Hunterdon County. When Leonard Lance was elected it was redder than it is now. Obama lost it both times he ran but in 2016 Hillary edged Trump 48.6% to 47.5%. The PVI is R+3 and the district is a prime target for the DCCC, which recruited a former spy and torture dissembler, Tom Malinowski, as the candidate. Malinowski has raised $2,311,646 to Lance's $1,534,858. Ryan's SuperPAC has thrown $1,576,871 into the race against Malinowski and the Pelosi's superPAC has spent $667,052 against Lance. The criminal No Labels PAC run by Nancy Jacobson and Mark Penn, has put another $91,460 into the race in favor of Lance.

Yesterday Mommouth released district polling that brought Lance and his Republican and No Labels supporters bad news.

That, in great part, is driven by this (Trump disapproval):

Lance has been a Trump enabler and has done several high-profile events with Trump in the district, primarily because Trump has a golf resort (Bedminster) there. His Trump affinity score is way out of whack with the district:

Malinowski benefits from running in a district with a large number of college educated voters who have swung more Democratic in the past two years. But Lance is keeping this race close despite President Donald Trump’s low ratings in the district. New Jersey’s 7th is home to Trump National Golf Club Bedminster, where the president has spent a good deal of time since taking office.

Malinowski is supported by 47% and Lance is supported by 39% of all potential voters-- that is voters who have participated in an election since 2010 or have newly registered to vote (a group that represents about 84% of all registered voters in the district). Another 2% of voters support one of the other candidate running and 12% are undecided.  Lance holds a lead among white voters without a college degree (50% to 36%), while Malinowski has the advantage among college educated white voters (50% to 39%) and non-white voters regardless of education (64% to 20%).

The Democrat’s lead in this race narrows when applying two different likely voter models. A historical midterm model gives Malinowski an insignificant 46% to 43% edge over Lance. A model that projects a possible turnout surge in Democratic precincts gives Malinowski a lead of 47% to 41%. Neither margin in these two likely voter models is statistically significant.

“The fundamentals of this swing district favor Malinowski, but he has not been able to break clear of Lance’s deep roots here,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.

New Jersey’s 7th district voted for Mitt Romney for president by 6 points in 2012, but swung to Hillary Clinton by one point in 2016. Lance ran more than 10 points ahead of the top of the GOP ticket in both years, winning his House seat by 17 points in 2012 and 11 points in 2016.

Lance currently holds the lead in his home base of Hunterdon County (49% to 38%), but not elsewhere in the district.  Malinowski is running slightly ahead of Lance in the Morris and Warren portion of the district (44% to 38%), which is an area that usually supports Republicans. Malinowski maintains a large lead in the historically Democratic-leaning Union and Essex portion of the district (54% to 35%). Perhaps the most interesting part of the district is the largest section in Somerset County, where Malinowski holds a 49% to 38% edge over Lance. This part of the district backed Romney by 5 points in 2012, but swung to give Clinton a nearly 6 point win four years later. This is also the part of the district where the president’s golf club is located.

Overall, just 39% of district voters approve of the job Trump is doing as president while a majority of 55% disapprove. The gap is even wider when looking at voters with “strong” opinions of the president-- just 26% strongly approve while 47% strongly disapprove. These are the lowest net ratings for Trump recorded by Monmouth in its polls of 12 bellwether House districts in this cycle-- only Virginia’s 10th district comes close. The president’s rating is a negative 36% approve to 59% disapprove in the Somerset portion of the district, which is nearly as bad as the 32% to 64% rating he gets in the more traditionally Democratic area of Union/Essex. Opinion of the president is slightly positive in Hunterdon (48% to 45%) and slightly negative in Morris/Warren (43% to 49%).

The poll finds that 62% of potential NJ-07 voters say it is very important for them to cast a vote for Congress that shows how they feel about the president-- including 71% of Trump opponents and 67% of Trump supporters. The Monmouth University Poll also finds that 61% of voters have a lot of interest in the election, which includes 69% of Malinowski supporters and 67% of Lance supporters.

“There’s not a lot of difference in enthusiasm levels between the two camps. It’s just that voters in this wealthy suburban district have swung more Democratic largely due to problems they have with their presidential neighbor,” said Murray.

More NJ-07 voters say that they would rather see Democrats (46%) than Republicans (32%) in control of Congress. Another 19% say that party control does not matter to them.

When asked to choose the top issue in their vote for Congress from a list of six policy areas, 26% of NJ-07 voters pick health care. This is followed by immigration (18%), gun control (14%), tax policy (14%), job creation (11%), and abortion (6%). Malinowski has the advantage on handling voters’ top concern, with 31% saying they trust the Democrat more on keeping health care affordable to 21% who say they trust Lance more on this issue. Another 20% say they trust both candidates equally.

Last year’s tax reform legislation, the GOP’s hallmark policy achievement which Lance voted against, plays poorly in this district.  Just 34% approve of the plan and 49% disapprove. Nearly half (45%) of NJ-07 voters say they expect their federal tax bill to go up under the new tax rules, just 20% think their taxes will go down, and 27% say their federal taxes will likely stay the same as they are now.

“It’s hard to buck a trend where voters really dislike both your party’s leader and signature accomplishment. But Lance is keeping this race close on the back of his reputation as a moderate as well as the goodwill he has built with constituents during his time in office.  It remains to be seen whether this will be enough to hang onto his seat,” said Murray.

Flipping A Central New Jersey Suburban District From Red To Blue-- Meet Peter Jacob

Last cycle Peter Jacob was another official candidate of the Democratic Party who the DCCC adamantly ignored. The Democratic Party establishment in Kings Landing sure didn't like anyone getting behind Bernie, the way Peter did! But he didn't let them get him down and, with a completely grassroots campaign he took on rubber-stamp backbencher Leonard Lance in his north central New Jersey district that stretches from the border with Pennsylvania (Hunterdon and Warren counties), clear across the state through Somerset and Morris counties and all the way into Essex and Union and the Elizabeth suburbs. This is a moderate, swingy area filled with independent voters repulsed by Trump. Although McCain and Romney had both won the district, last year Hillary beat Trump 48.6% to 47.5%. Distaste for Trump is much stronger now, and voters were paying attention when Lance, in the most craven way, flip-flopped on healthcare, first voting for TrumpCare in committee and then, when he became fearful for his own career, switching and voting against the bill on the floor.

As Peter pointed out at the time, "Lance endorsed Donald Trump within 24-hours of becoming the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee. Many in New Jersey boast that Congressman Lance is a moderate, but this endorsement proves that Congressman Lance will do anything to get re-elected. While serving in the New Jersey state Legislature, Congressman Lance was seen as someone who was pro-environment, pro-choice, and reached over the aisle to get things done. Congressman Lance was initially equivocal about the construction of a natural gas pipeline in our District, and now takes credit for it’s delay as strong local opposition rises and election season is here-- all the while supporting legislation that makes it easier to construct such pipelines in the first place. It is little wonder why the League of Conservation scored his lifetime voting percentage at just 23% on pro-environment legislation. In 2014, his pro-environment score was a mere 6%! Consistently providing contributions to Congressman Lance’s campaign has paid off for the dirty energy industry to have him support their agenda.  Congressman Lance voted to cut off all funding for Planned Parenthood, including clinics that provide health care with no abortion services. Time and time again, Congressman Lance has proved that he isn’t a leader for our District and our nation. Like Trump, he will say anything at any time out of convenience. Congressman Lance toes the party line as Washington becomes more divisive, partisan, and extreme... In my opinion, Congressman Lance’s immediate endorsement of Trump is a result of a ‘tea-party’ candidate, David Larsen, who has challenged him in every primary since 2010. Larsen came within single-digit points of defeating Congressman Lance in the 2014 primary. Congressman Lance’s endorsement of Trump is a political move to help secure the Republican nomination and putting an end to this perennial candidate."

He added that Lance's backing for the Lord of Bedminster-- which is in the district-- was "ironic considering Congressman Lance is the kind of bought-and-sold politician that Trump himself has spoken out against, at least during his primary race; one entirely beholden to special interests rather than the interests of the people... We don’t need any more career politicians in Washington who solely serve special interests. We deserve public servants who will place people over politics and put the public back in public service." We caught up with Peter this week and asked him to bring us up-to-date since the 2016 campaign. Below is his guest post.

Fight Forward with the People's Platform
-by Peter Jacob,
Candidate for U.S. Congress
7th District of NJ
www.Jacob2018.com

We are, each and every one of us, witnessing in real time some very, very real transformations to our society, our government, and our planet. It so often feels like any given day is a completely different world from the one preceding it. Inequality is skyrocketing. Real opportunity for millions of us is drying up along with vast quantities of precious resources. The drums of war are being beaten again by an even larger and richer military industrial complex than the one that sent us into Iraq. Every single day we are given yet another example of how those are supposed to be serving the public are only serving themselves. What will tomorrow bring?

We have the ability right now to decide the direction we take, together. Recent history has shown us exactly what happens when societies become this unjust. When so much of the wealth of society becomes controlled by so few people, we can guarantee the extremes of humanity are soon to follow. People inevitably start to feel desperate. They then often have to decide between one of two paths; one littered with false idols and false prophets with false promises, or uniting together to create true and lasting equality, justice, and peace.

We know that every four generations, the following story plays out: crisis levels of greed and corruption cause the hording of wealth, the hording of wealth creates massive inequality and instability, recession and depression occur because of lack of wealth in the middle and lower classes, followed by a massive conflict. The last time this happened was the Global Great Depression followed by World War II. We can trace this cycle all the way back to the dawn of the market economy and we know what phase we are in now. We are most assuredly heading for a reset; likely a very big one.

This is not meant to convey fear, but to inspire action. We are the fourth generation in the cycle. We can choose the path towards equality, justice, and peace. We know the last ‘fourth generation’ today as the Greatest Generation. Not because they won a war, but because they defeated tyranny! They saw what happens when greed takes over policy and passed just laws to make sure economic criminals could no longer rob us of our homes, retirements, and votes. They created wonderful programs that infused wealth back into the working class and created prosperity that we still enjoy today. We need to be the next Greatest Generation.

That is why I’m vying a second time for United States Congress. Our 2016 campaign saw us come closer to defeating our big pharma, big telecom, and big oil-funded incumbent opponent than any challenger in the history of our district. That was due in largest part to the drive and energy of our 1,400 campaign volunteers, and the support of thousands of small dollar donations that averaged $17 apiece. In just the first month of our 2018 campaign, our average donation has skyrocketed to $140, with over 200 new volunteers joining our cause.

People across the entire political spectrum are uniting with our message, and realizing that the status quo is no longer working. Libertarians, Tea Partiers, moderates, independents, and democratic socialists were all represented at our campaign events because of two simple questions that we posed to voters: Is government working for you? Who is it working for?

This campaign, we are focusing on what our policy ideas are going to do for the lives of people right here on the local level. We are going to break the belief that responsible government of, by, and for the people is some far off pipe dream, and show what can happen when the powerful tool of democracy is set free from the cancer of special interest cash that has enslaved it.

That is why we are running squarely on ‘The People’s Platform’ as created and promoted by Our Revolution. So far, the Platform includes Medicare for All, fully funded public colleges and universities, $15 minimum wage, strict protections for women’s reproductive rights with the EACH Act, the Automatic Voter Registration Act, and bold, drastic measures to combat the exponential climate crisis.

Of course, this is all coupled with the firm assertion that we will be able to solve these major problems only after we are able to once again utilize the power of democracy for the good of the people. Simply put, if we want to solve anything, we must also solve money in politics. The only way government begins to work for the people is when the people’s voices aren’t drowned under a tsunami of donor and lobbying cash. We must pass a Constitutional Amendment that clearly states that the spending of money is not a protected form of speech, and that corporations do not have the same rights as people. We must go further in crafting a fully publicly funded and transparent electoral system, banning the use of partisan gerrymandering and the ability for politicians to pick their voters.

Our 2016 campaign was the first and only one in New Jersey endorsed by Senator Bernie Sanders’ “Our Revolution,” and has recently sparked the interests of Democracy For America, the Progressive Campaign Change Committee, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Our support is growing. Our energy is multiplying. Our message is resonating. The distrust and anxiety caused by our current state of affairs is making 2018 is a golden opportunity for concerned, passionate, caring Americans to have a major impact on the next steps we take as a people. We will be spending every single second of every single day showing them that they do have a voice. All they have to do is use it. What will tomorrow bring?

Contested Elections Are Important For A Real Democracy-- Or Are We Russia Already?

Yeah, that's Sean Duffy on the right... helping wreck America with impunity

Funny how elections focus the minds of politicians-- or at least elections where there is real opposition. when the incompetent boobs who run the DCCC announced there would be no targeting of Republican congressmembers in Wisconsin in 2018-- not of Paul Ryan, of course, but also not of Sean Duffy and Glenn Grothman-- all 5 Republican members from Wisconsin relaxed... and stopped worrying about voting for policies far to the right of what would make sense for their mainstream constituents. The other day, Duffy went on CNN and brazenly defended Donald Trump, Jr. conspiring against America with the Kremlin, in other words treason. "I don't have an issue with it," said Duffy, knowing there would be no electoral consequences for himself. "There's nothing wrong with that. That's not a crime... I have no problems with what Donald Jr. did, and I don't think any prosecutor would either."

Duffy represents a traditionally progressive district in the northwest part of the state that stretches from Wausau to the suburbs of Duluth. In 2008 Obama beat McCain 53% to 45% and in 2012 Obama lost to Romney 51-48%. Dave Obey served as congressman from WI-07 from 1969 to 2011, when he retired and the DCCC lost the district to Duffy. They didn't back the progressive Democrats who ran against Duffy in 2014 or 2016 and so far this cycle there is no Democratic candidate-- all the prospective candidates citing DCCC hostility as a reason for not running, despite the urgency of having candidates run down-ticket to help reelect Tammy Baldwin. Not to mention, keeping the party from completely atrophying in the district. Atrophying of local parties, I'm sorry to say, is the only thing the DCCC has regularly accomplished since Pelosi started calling the shots there.

Anyway, with no opponent, Duffy is free to vote in lockstep with the Trump Regime and to go on TV and promote the nonsense and lies that the Regime is built on. The congressmembers who are being targeted in the 2018 cycle are far more likely to oppose Trump and to not make crackpot statements defending treason. Look at Scott Taylor in Virginia for example, He was also on CNN this week talking about Don Jr's treason with the Russians. Trump narrowly won his Virginia Beach/Williamsburg district-- 48.8% to 45.4%-- but there are already 3 Democrats vying for the nomination to oppose him. And Taylor's CNN appearance was very different--much more mainstream-- than Duffy's. He expressed his frustration with with the bobbing and weaving the Trump regime-- and Trump family-- have been displaying in their attempts to coverup the treasonous behavior.

"The reality is, if you had some meetings, if you met some folks ... say what you've done, get it out there. But yeah, it gets frustrating when you have this. Because I do think that some of this is really overplayed and I think ultimately folks that are on the streets-- American people-- don't care. They're over it," Taylor said on CNN's The Lead.

...Taylor also criticized Congress' handling of the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential race in favor of Trump, saying that neither Democrats nor Republicans have taken meaningful steps to deter future efforts to meddle in U.S. elections.

"What you have to have here is a policy; A policy that says to other nations they will not interfere in our election," he said. "A Monroe Doctrine in cyber, if you will. That's missing from this debate and that's very unfortunate, both on the Democrats and the Republicans."

Another Republican who is going to have a tough reelection bid, Leonard Lance, voted for TrumpCare in committee, but when his constituents went wild he switched and voted against TrumpCare when the final vote came in the House. He has been regularly running to Chris Hayes' show on MSNBC to complain about Trump. Watch what Hayes did to him on Friday evening:



It would have been a far different conversation if Sean Duffy was Hayes' guest, of that we can be very sure. In a democracy, contested elections aren't just important to pick our representatives but also to hold them accountable for their behavior. That isn't something Sean Duffy-- and scores of other Republican incumbents-- have to worry about from a DCCC that has been utterly mishandled by Nancy Pelosi from the moment she got control of it. And there are some thing Pelosi is good at. But she's in a 100% safe blue district-- Hillary beat Trump there 86.2% to 8.7%-- and she is utterly clueless about how elections work-- as are the entire upper echelon of the Democratic congressional leadership. Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn and Crowley don't understand electoral politics-- which is reflected by DCCC strategies. They all desperately need primaries to sharpen their own focus.

The Toxicity Of Trump And Ryan Is Already Impacting House Races

Yesterday NJ.com posted a piece about the bigly renewed interest of Democrats to run against GOP healthcare flip-flopper Leonard Lance. Lance backed TrumpCare in committee, was pummeled with harsh criticism in his central New Jersey district, and then did an about face and voted against it Thursday. Hopefully Ed Potosnak or Peter Jacobs will run, but already Scott Salmon, Lisa Mandelblatt and Linda Weber have filed to run. NJ.com mentioned that the Cook Political Report said “Lance is strongly favored to win re-election but it's not a safe seat.” According to this chart, Lance’s 7th district is the most vulnerable of 3 New Jersey’s GOP-held seats in play.

Right before the NJ.com piece was posted, Cook had re-rated 20 seats— all in the direction of Democrats, including Lance seat, which went from a “likely Republican” to a “lean Republican.”

Republicans' 217-213 passage of the American Health Care Act on Thursday guarantees Democrats will have at least one major on-the-record vote to exploit in the next elections. Although it's the first of potentially many explosive votes, House Republicans' willingness to spend political capital on a proposal that garnered the support of just 17 percent of the public in a March Quinnipiac poll is consistent with past scenarios that have generated a midterm wave.

Not only did dozens of Republicans in marginal districts just hitch their names to an unpopular piece of legislation, Democrats just received another valuable candidate recruitment tool. In fact, Democrats aren't so much recruiting candidates as they are overwhelmed by a deluge of eager newcomers, including doctors and veterans in traditionally red seats who have no political record for the GOP to attack— almost a mirror image of 2010.

…[F]or several dozen Republicans, adding support for the AHCA to their voting record is an unequivocal political risk. And, several of the 20 Republicans who voted against AHCA could end up being blamed anyway, much as 17 of the 30 Democrats who took a pass on the ACA and then ran for reelection ended up losing in 2010. For others, tough votes could make the prospect of retirement more appealing.

In light of the vote, they just shifted their ratings in 20 districts, “all reflecting enhanced opportunities for Democrats.” Steve Knight (CA-25), Jason Lewis (MN-02) and Mike Coffman (CO-06) fared worst, going from “lean Republican” to “toss up.” Lance plus 10 Republicans who voted for TrumpCare slipped from “Likely Republican” to “Lean Republican”— Martha McSally (AZ-02), Ed Royce (CA-39), Mimi Walters (CA-45), Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48), Peter Roskam (IL-06), David Young (IA-03), Kevin Yoder (KS-03), Erik Paulsen (MN-03), John Culberson (TX-07) and Pete Sessions (TX-32).

Another 6 Republican seats were downgraded from “Solid Republican” to “Likely Republican”— Rodney Davis (IL-13), Randy Hultgren (IL-14), Lynn Jenkins (KS-02), Mike Bishop (MI-08), Tom MacArthur (NJ-03) and Steve Chabot (OH-01). This might help with candidate recruitment in Chabot’s and MacArthgur’s seats.

The GOP has every reason to believe the DCCC will screw up candidate recruitment in most of these districts, as has become habitual for them for the past decade, searching first and foremost for worthless self-funders with Republican-lite messages.

Will The Republicans Who Voted For TrumpCare Before Ryan Raised The White Flag, Be Held Accountable? Not If It's Up To The DCCC

Hey, who does the candidate recruiting around here?

As everyone knows by now, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy pulled their TrumpCare proposal off the floor of the House for the second-- and final-- time yesterday. Good riddance to a bill that basically no one liked except Ryan himself and some fellow Ayn Rand devotees. This incredibly unpopular bill-- with it's mighty 17% approval rating-- and which Trump chief consiglieri Steve Bannon says was written by the insurance industry, an industry that has given Paul Ryan $2,031,705 in bribes-- will not force Republicans to go on the record voting for a bill that most voters said would incline them to oppose reelection for their congressmember if he or she supported it. Republicans are relieved-- at least most of them are. Some, like Martha McSally (R-AZ), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Kevin Calvert (R-CA), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Mimi Walters (R-CA), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Mike Coffman (R-CA), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Steve King (R-IA), Fred Upton (R-MI), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Lee Zeldin (R-NY), John Faso (R-NY), Tom Reed (R-NY), Jim Renacci (R-OH), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Sean Duffy (R-WI) and David McKinley (R-WV), had already been on record as supporting the bill.

But even easier for Democrats to target are Republicans who did vote for it already. True, it didn't get voted on on the floor, but it did get voted on in the House Budget Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. These were the Republicans who voted for TrumpCare in the Budget Committee:

• Diane Black (TN)
• Todd Rotika (IN)
• Mario Diaz-Balart (FL)
• Tom Cole (OK)
• Tom McClintock (CA)
• Rob Woodall (GA)
• Steve Womack (AR)
• Glenn Grothman (WI)
• Bruce Westerman (AR)
• Jim Renacci (OH)
• Bill Johnson (OH)
• Jason Smith (MO)
• Jason Lewis (MN)
• Jack Bergman (MI)
• John Faso (NY)
• Lloyd Smucker (PA)
• Matt Gaetz (FL)
• Jodey Arrington (TX)
• Drew Ferguson (GA)

Mark Sanford (SC), Dave Brat (VA) and Gary Palmer (AL) joined every Democrat on the committee in voting no. It passed 19-17. In the Energy and Commerce Committee the whole Republican membership voted in complete lockstep in favor of TrumpCare in all it's miserable glory. I was happy to see that someone at the DCCC figured out that this is indeed a perfect way to hit the Republicans-- or at least the tiny handful who they are targeting. As you can see below, Leonard Lance (R-NJ), who represents a district Hillary won and who is considered vulnerable if a strong candidate like Ed Potosnak runs, voted for TrumpCare in committee. He later flip-flopped under intense pressure from his constituents and promised to vote no on the floor. But there was no floor vote-- just the record of Lance's vote in committee.

Potosnak, in fact, told supporters who have been urging him to run against Lance that he had watched the March 9th MSNBC interview with Chris Hayes when Lance explained his support for TrumpCare and defended the lack of committee hearings and expert testimony by stating "we had a 27-hour marathon session, and I think all of the issues were vetted." Ed's response was straight-forward: "Boy was Lance wrong when he said 'all of the issues were vetted.' If ever there was a time when hindsight was 20/20, for Lance it should be this moment. The problem is he changes his positions on issues with the shifting of the political winds, voting against the interests of New Jerseyans, and siding instead with party extremists... While many of us breathed a sigh of relief knowing our parents and grandparents weren’t going to be priced out of health insurance and lifesaving emergency room visits would remain covered for the 'foreseeable future,' I couldn't stop thinking back to what really happened down in Washington in past few weeks. Not long before Lance was against AHCA in his frequent TV appearances, his March 9th vote in favor of the AHCA aimed to throw 24 million Americans off health insurance and raise the uninsured rate in his own congressional district by 65% kicking 24,231 of his constituents off medical insurance. He commented he voted yes on the Republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act saying 'we have gone to the American people with Paul Ryan’s better way. And we campaigned on the fact that we were going to improve the system. And I think that’s what we`ve done.' But as pressure mounted here at home and from many groups like AARP and hospitals, he flip-flopped and set out to erase his early crucial support of AHCA vote from people’s memories." The DCCC ad, if they put some bucks behind it, will remind voters in Somerset, Union and Hunterdon counties what Leonard Lance was really doing down in DC, which wasn't always what he was saying to folks in Mount Olive, Montgomery, Hillsborough and... yes, Bedminster.

This is a good ad and the DCCC should make one like for everyone on the list. It starts running Monday and I hear there are ads like it for 13 other Republicans who voted for TRumpCare in their committees including Carlos Curbelo (FL), Ryan Costello (PA), John Faso (NY), Mimi Walters (CA), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), Pete Roskam (IL), Erik Paulsen (MN), Pat Meehan (PA), Tim Walberg (MI) and Ryan Costello (PA).

• Greg Walden (OR)
• Joe Barton (TX)
• John Shimkus (IL)
• Tim Murphy (PA)
• Mike Burgess (TX)
• Marsha Blackburn (TN)
• Steve Scalise (LA)
• Robert Latta (OH)
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA)
• Gregg Harper (MS)
• Leonard Lance (NJ)
• Brett Guthrie (KY)
• Pete Olson (TX)
• David McKinley (WV)
• Adam Kinzinger (IL)
• Morgan Griffith (VA)
• Gus Billirakis (FL)
• Bill Johnson (OH)
• Billy Long (MO)
• Larry Bucshon (IN)
• Bill Flores (TX)
• Susan Brooks (IN)
• Markwayne Mullin (OK)
• Richard Hudson (NC)
• Chris Collins (NY)
• Kevin Cramer (ND)
• Tim Walberg (MI)
• Mimi Walters (CA)
• Ryan Costello (PA)
• Buddy Carter (GA)

How could they be so stupid? Well, that would be a logical question except for one little grouping of 4 letters: D-C-C-C. Take the Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee. The DCCC is thinking about targeting maybe 6 of them-- Lance, McKinley, Brooks, Walberg, Walters and Costello. The ads for 5 of them are a great step in the right direction but maybe one or two will actually get a real full scale challenge; maybe. The rest will walk free and clear regardless of having voted to kick millions of people off healthcare. Hard to believe, huh? Same in the Budget committee. Maybe 4-- maybe zero-- may get challenges from the DCCC. 4 from that committee are included in the ad campaign. The rest are home free with no worries about having enabled and supported the unpopular and destructive TrumpCare. That's the DCCC. I would strongly recommend never, under any circumstances, supporting their efforts no matter how good they make them sound. Instead, contribute directly to candidates you want to help-- like the ones at the thermometer on the right.

New Jersey Town Halls

Republican Christopher Smith was elected to Congress 37 years ago, in 1980, age 27. He had been a Democrat but switched parties in 2 years earlier and ran against crooked Democrat, Frank Thompson, who had been convicted of taking bribes in the Abscam scandal. The Democrats have coveted taking the district back ever since-- but have been highly unsuccessful in ever getting anywhere near doing so. His reelection bids have attracted over 60% since 1984. Last November, he beat Democrat Lorna Phillipson 206,137 (63.7%) to 108,373 (33.5%), rolling up large margins in all 3 counties that make up the districts-- Monmouth, Ocean and Mercer. He only spent $661,899 on his campaign.

Smith's last public town hall with his constituents was in 1992-- that's a quarter-century ago. When a friend of mine in Trenton Gardens decided to organize an impromptu town hall in front of Smith's house he had to call it off because Smith lives too far from the district-- in Herndon, Virginia. No, really, his family is so-much part of Virginia that Smith was able to request and receive in-state tuition privileges, saving the family $20,000 per year. In 2006 he spent a total of exactly 7 days in New Jersey. He spends more time traveling abroad than he does in New Jersey.

Fact is, the Democrats have lusted after all 3 Republican-held districts in South Jersey for some time. (They hold the 1st district in the Philly 'burbs, but with an extremely corrupt, right-of-center fake-Dem, Donald Norcross, most Democrats would rather not claim political kinship to. The 2nd district (PVI is D+1) is held by Frank LoBiondo, the 3rd (R+1) is held by Tom MacArthur. Neither of them are bothering with town hall constituent meetings either. Yesterday there was a Citizens Townhall for MacArthur at the DeMasi School in Marlton and one for Smith at the Monmouth County Library in Manalapan. Neither MacArthur nor Smith showed up. Saturday there's a demonstration planned for LoBiondo at his district office in relatively remote Mays Landing (population 2,135) at noon. Obama won LoBiondo's and MacArthur's districts both times he ran and lost Smith's district both times. The DCCC has been willing to recruit and finance candidates-- usually terrible ones-- against LoBiondo and MacArthur in the past... but that may not be as automatic in 2018. Trump won all 3 Republican-held South Jersey districts in November.

• NJ-02- 50.6% to 46.0%, 5 points better than Romney had done
• NJ-03- 51.4% to 45.2%, 4 points better than Romney
• NJ-04- 55.8% to 41.0%, a point and a half better than Romney

The DCCC is looking north towards Leonard Lance's 7th district and perhaps even Rodney Frelinghuysen's 11th district instead, districts they never seriously consider. Hillary beat Trump in the 7th CD-- 48.6% to 47.5%-- and almost tied him in the 11th-- 48.8% to 47.9%. Frightened, Lance scheduled 2 town halls this week.

MacArthur’s staff is, repeating alt-fact GOP talking points that paid, out-of-district protesters are the only ones in Burlington and Ocean counties who have a problem with MacArthur carrying Trump’s water on such things as the racist travel ban. Not only is that ridiculous, it's also utterly offensive to the people he purports to represent. All three are cowering in Trump’s corner and steadfastly refusing to do their jobs and absolutely refuse to stand and listen to the fears and concerns of their constituents.

Leonard Lance's town last night at Raritan Valley Community College had the biggest turnout of any public meeting of his political career and was especially interesting because he seemed to have been figuring out in real time that by adopting progressive agenda items he didn't get boo-ed; he got cheered. Watch how he handles the Obamacare replacement question right in the beginning of the clip. He also told the large crowd that he "urges" Trump to release his tax returns.

Stopping Trump By Winning Back The House In 2018-- One Of The Possible Paths

How many suburban congressman besides Issa will live to regret backing Trump?

I have a part-time job-- congressional recruiting. It's voluntary and it's GRUELING. In between the time I wrote "congressional" and "recruiting" in the last sentence, I had a 30 minute conversation with a top recruit for a swing district. He's run before. He hates the DCCC. Everyone I talk to hates the DCCC. The DCCC screwed him over. He's already a pretty high-ranking state-level elected official and who didn't enjoy being consistently lied to and rat-fucked by Steve Israel and Kelly Ward and treated like a novice by the unaccomplished moron-children they assigned to deal with candidates. He has a family and a life and to go through another experience with the DCCC wouldn't be worth another run for Congress. Almost everyone who has ever experienced the DCCC feels the same way. I hear it all day long-- every day and from every part of the country. Madonna should forget about blowing up and the White House and imagine blowing up the DCCC instead. Unless today is the first day you're reading DWT, you know I'm the last person to be an effective defender of the DCCC. In fact, no one detests them more than I do.

That said, Israel and Kelly Ward are gone. That's a big deal-- but not nirvana. According to people I trust, this new executive director is supposed to be pretty good. We'll see. Rotgut Blue Dog (and Rahm Emanuel protégée) Cheri Bustos had a dominant voice on the recruiting committee last cycle and many people blame her-- and rightfully so-- for how horribly the Democrats did. This year, I'm hearing that people let her yammer on and try to ignore her determined stupidity and let others on the recruitment committee take the lead. That's also a big deal.

This week I was turned down by two superb prospective candidates who refuse to do anything with the DCCC until they've proven themselves to be free of the poison Steve Israel wrecked the place with. But I found another one who's more open to running. He'd be great and the Republican who represents the blue-leaning district could be a real victim of the toxic combination of Trump and Ryan.

But what I want us to look at today are the red-held seats where Hillary out-performed Obama (or even did about as well as Obama) and where the DCCC has been ineffective-- or nonexistent. A good example would be FL-27 (Miami), where Debbie Wasserman Schultz has worked for a decade to protect her corrupt Republican crony Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. In 2012 Obama beat Romney in FL-27 53.0% to 46.3%, a pretty strong performance. But Wasserman Schultz and Ros-Lehtinen worked together to make sure there would be no plausible Democratic opponent-- and Ros-Lehtinen coasted to reelection. This past cycle, Hillary did even better, beating Trump in the district 58.6% to 38.9%. Again, Ros-Lehtinen had a joke to run against instead of a real candidate. But even running against a nothing candidate with no DCCCC suppory-- and who spent just $869,383 to Ros-Lehtinen's $3,328,739-- she only managed to win with 54.9%. Against a credible, well-supported candidate... we could see Ros-Lehtinen go work for her old amigo Lincoln Diaz-Balart's campaign for President of Cuba.

These are the districts that need to be seriously looked at for 2018 targeting:

• AZ-02, Martha McSally's district, which Hillary won-- 49.6% to 44.7%, beating Obama's 2012 performance (48.4% to 49.9%) The Democrats had a weak candidate-- a New Dem-- who the DCCC didn't support and who raised just $1,571,901 to McSally's $8,261,616. McSally out-performed Trump massively. She won with 56.7% (compared to Trump's 44.7% loss).

The only other seat in Arizona worth looking at is David Schweikert's Scottsdale/ParadiseValley district-- although that would be a real long-shot and could only be won as part of a massive anti-Trump/anti-Ryan tsunami. Hillary lost 52.4- 42.4% but she did a lot better than Obama's 38.8% total in 2012. Schweikert hasn't had a viable opponent. Moving along to California, there are excellent opportunities for Democratic pickups. Trump and Republican polices are widely hated and 2018 should be golden for Democrats in the Golden State.

• CA-10, Jeff Denham's Central Valley (Modesto, Manteca, Tracy) seat is a minority white district. Hillary did slightly worse than Obama there but still beat Trump 48.5-45.5%. Obama had beaten Romney 50.6-47.0%. The DCCC backed Michael Eggman. Denham spent $4,174,467 to Engman's $1,551,905. The DCCC & Pelosi's House Majority PAC put in just over $3.8 million to Ryan's Congressional Leadership Fund's $3.3 million. Denham beat Eggman by around 10,000 votes-- 52.4% to 47.6%. It was a better performance than Engman's 44% in 2014 but the DCCC is talking about running his sister, Susan, an Assemblywoman, in 2018 instead.

• CA-21, David Valadao's Central Valley district is south of Denham's and is over 72% Latino. (Chew that over in your mind.) Obama beat Romney 54.6% to 43.5% and Hillary did even better-- besting Trump 55.2% to 39.7%. Emilio Huerta, Dolores Huerta's son ran, but got off to a bumpy start without much DCCC help when it was needed. Valadao beat him by around 11,000 votes (58-42%) in one of the lowest turn districts in California. And Valadao spent $2,765,981 to Emilio's $630,389.

• CA-25, Buck McKeon's old district in northeastern L.A. County (Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley) and Ventura (Simi Valley), is now represented by out-of-his-depth teabagger Steve Knight, a bad fit for a blue district. Romney beat Obama there 49.7-47.8% but Hillary beat Trump 50.3-43.6%. The DCCC recruited an especially unelectable piece of crap candidate from outside the district and wrecked any chance for the Democrats to win. Knight was reelected by almost 50,000 votes-- 50-40%, a landslide in a blue district. Thanks DCCC. It's a perfect example about why local Democrats hate them so much. (And Bustos tried to re-recruit him for 2018, something that went over badly on every level.)

• CA-39, Ed Royce's 32% white northern Orange County district is an odd place for a racist asshole like Royce... but the DCCC never backs Democrats against him. This year Hillary kicked ass there. Where Romney beat Obama 50.8- 47.1%, she beat Trump 51.5% to 42.9%. The DCCC refused to get behind Brett Murdock who was outspent $3,536,482 to $76,014 but still managed to take 42.3% of the vote against Royce, whose days are clearly numbered.

• CA-45, Mimi Walters central Orange County (Irvine) district is another one the DCCC reflexively ignored. Hillary outperformed Obama (who lost to Romney with 43.0%) and beat Trump 49.8-44.4%. Walters was comfortably reelected by 50,000 votes (59-41%), the DCCC completely ignoring Ron Varasteh, her opponent, who was outspent $1,643,696 to $42,761.

• CA-48, Dana Rohrabacher's Huntington Beach/Costa Mesa district, wasn't Trump territory either. Romney beat Obama there, 54.7-43.0%. Hillary took the district 47.9% to 46.2%. Again, the Democratic candidate, Sue Savary, was ignored by the DCCC and drastically outspent-- $609,952 by Rohrabacher to her $91,293. He beat her 58.5- 41.5%.

• CA-49, Darrell Issa's seat in northern San Diego/southern Orange County, was one of the tightest in the country. Doug Applegate nearly beat him-- just 6,000 votes separating them (51-49%), despite Issa outspending him $6,169,077 to $1,633,251. The DCCC jumped into the race way too late but did spend around $3.5 million eventually. Romney had beaten Obama there 52.4% to 45.7% but Hillary trounced Trump 50.7-43.2% in the highly educated middle class, mostly suburban district. Good news: Applegate is running again. (You can contribute to his campaign here.)

• CO-06 is a suburban Denver district Democrats should win. Obama beat Romney 51.6% to 46.5% and, though Hillary didn't do as well, she still beat Trump 50.2% to 41.3%. The DCCC got behind a very strong candidate, Morgan Carroll, who pretty much kept up in the spending area but the NRCC and Ryan's PAC spent spent $6.3 million to the DCCC's and Pelosi's PAC's $5.0 million. Coffman won 51.3% to 42.4%.

• FL-25, FL-26, FL-27- The 3 Republican-held districts in Miami-Dade. Hillary won FL-26 (Carlos Curbelo) and FL-27 (Ros-Lehtinen) definitively and narrowly lost the redder FL-25 (Mario Diaz-Balart), out-performing Obama's 2012 scores in each. The DCCC ignored FL-25 and FL-27 and ran a ghastly campaign for a terrible, completely unelectable and notoriously corrupt candidate in FL-26. What a mess!

• GA-06 the Tom Price district in the suburbs north of Atlanta where a special election will soon determine if anti-Trump sentiment is growing or subsiding in a traditionally very red district that veered sharply towards Hillary in November. These well-off, well-educated suburbanites don't like Trump. They gave Romney a 60.8-37.5% victory over Obama. Four years later, the swing was mind boggling. without ever campaigning there or spending any money there, Hillary nearly won the district. Trump took it narrowly-- 48.3% to 46.8%. The primaries for both parties are going to be contentious but the likely Democratic candidate, Jon Ossoff, is just the kind of no-nonsense values-driven candidate who could claim this unlikely district for the Democrats.

• GA-07- Just east of Price's district is an equally red seat held by right-wing nut Bob Woodall, slightly more exurban than suburban. The swing towards Hillary was also strong though not quite as eye-popping as in GA-06. Romney beat Obama there 60.2-38.3% and Trump lost around 9 points from Romney's score to come out ahead of Hillary 51.1% to 44.8%. Woodall has won every race with over 60%-- although last November was his smallest majority (60..5%), despite-- once again-- not having a competitive opponent. The DCCC has entirely ignored both GA-07 and GA-06. Woodall raised $648,604 and his opponent, Rashid Malik didn't raise the $5,000 required for an FEC report.

• IL-06 is Pete Roskam's Chicagoland district (parts of DuPage, Henry, Lake, Cook and Kane counties). It's the only Republican-held district in Illinois where Hillary had a substantially better performance than Obama. He lost the district to Romney 53.3-45.1%. Hillary beat Trump there-- 50.2% to 43.2%. The DCCC has consistently allowed Roskam to slide into reelection without a fight. He hasn't had a fight since his first election in 2006 and generally wins with over 60%. This year he beat Amanda Howland, who got zero support from the DCCC, 59.5% to 40.5%. Roskam spent $3,331,980 on the race to her $98,179.

• KS-03 is the Kansas part of Kansas City (most of the city is in Missouri) and the district includes all of Johnson and Wyandotte counties and part of rural Miami County. The DCCC actually sensed something about the district, which is represented by weak backbencher Kevin Yoder. Hillary won the district, 47.2% to 46.0%. Romney had beaten Obama there 53.8-44.3%. The Democratic candidate against Yoder, Jay Sidie spent $563,363 to Yoder's $4,049,363. The DCCC threw in an additional $1,404,577, while Ryan's Congressional Leadership Fund spent $795,373. But Sidie wasn't a strong enough candidate and Yoder won by around 36,000 votes-- 51.3% to 40.6%. (A Libertarian took 8% of the vote.)

• MI-11 is the Dave Trott district in the Oakland and Wayne county suburbs west and northwest of Detroit. While the DCCC was working hard and wasting money on horrible, unelectable Blue Dog garbage candidates in other parts of the state, they refused to work with progressive doctor Anil Kumar-- Steve Israel is a vicious Islamophobe and he blackballed Kumar-- who did better than any of their sad-sack Blue Dogs. Hillary did terribly in the Republican-held districts in Michigan but less terrible in MI-11. Romney had beaten Obama there 52.3- 46.9% but neither Trump nor Hillary did as well, Trump scraping by with a 49.7-45.3% win. Kumar, who managed to raise enough money to start competitive with Trott, spent $1,109,010 to Trott's $1,337,399. The DCCC and Pelosi's PAC wasted $2.3 million of pathetic Blue Dog and NRA proponent Lon Johnson and lost in MI-01 but would have taken MI-11 if they spent that money on Kumar instead. Trott won with just 52.9%. Hopefully the DCCC will remember in 2018.

• MN-03, Erik Paulson's seat, was the only Republican-held district in Minnesota where Clinton out-performed Obama. Obama beat Romney there 49.6% to 48.8% and Hillary beat Trump 50.8% to 41.4%. Again, the well educated suburbanites west and south of Minneapolis (Edna, Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka) couldn't stomach voting for Trump-- but stuck with Paulsen in light of a weak Democratic opponent Terri Bonoff, who lost by around 50,000 votes, 56.9% to 43.1% despite nearly $4 million in independent expenditures from the DCCC.

• NE-02, the Omaha district with the single worst Blue Dog in Congress, "ex"-Republican Brad Ashford, who was defeated in November by Republican Don Bacon. Romney had beaten Obama there, 52.9-45.7% and Hillary did a little better than Obama and Trump did worse than Romney. The final tally there was a Trump win of 48.2% to 46.0%. The Blue Dog incumbent lost by almost 6,000 votes (49.4% to 47.3%) even though he outspent the Republican $2,515,416 to $1,454,019 and even though the DCCC and Pelosi's PAC wasted around $3.4 million, proving once again that if voters want a Republican, they vote for an actual Republican, not a Republican-lite Blue Dog.

• NJ-07 is Leonard Lance's suburban district in northern New Jersey that includes, primarily, chunks of Somerset, Union and Hunterdon counties. While Hillary underperformed Obama in the Republican-held New Jersey blue collar districts (NJ-02, NJ-03, NJ-04), she out-performed Obama in the better-off more suburban districts (NJ-07 and NJ-11). In 2012 Romney won NJ-07 52.5-46.3% but in November Hillary beat Trump 48.6-47.5%, again Trump underperforming Romney much more drastically than Hillary out-peforming Obama. The Democrats didn't run a candidate against Lance though, choosing to giving him a free ride to reelection again. He beat under-financed Berniecrat Peter Jacob by nearly 40,000 votes, 54.2% to 43.0%, after outspending him $1,276,330 to $305,073, while the DCCC looked on without batting an eye.

• NJ-11 was a similar situation. Rodney Frelinghuysen III or IV, treats the district (parts of Morris, Essex, Passaic and Sussex counties) as an hereditary familiar barony. He raised $1,991,920 while his Democratic opponent, Joe Wenzel, raised less than the $5,000 that would have triggered an FEC report. He won 58.2-38.7%, while Hillary out-performed Obama and virtually tied Trump. Romney had beaten Obama 52.4-46.6% in 2012. In November, Hillary had improved on Obama's performance slightly (to 47.9%) while Trump underperformed Romney significantly (48.8%).

• PA-06, PA-07 and PA-08 are the three blue-leaning suburban swing districts that surround Philly on 3 sides. The Democrats should have won all 3 but the DCCC botched up all three races and they are, once again, Republican-held. While Hillary was under-performing Obama in most Pennsylvania red districts, she held her own in these three, spending enormous energy and lots of money in the area. In 2012 Romney beat Obama in PA-06 50.6-48.1% but Hillary was maintaining Obama's numbers (48/2%), Trump was untenable for many Romney voters and only wound up with 47.6%, losing the district to Hillary. Mike Parrish, the worthless conservative Democrat who ran against Ryan Costello did far worse than Hillary and Costello beat him 57.3-42.7%. In PA-07, Pat Meehan's district, Hillary beat Trump 49.3% to 47.0%, primarily because Romney voters refused to vote for Trump. But the DCCC purposeless sabotaged the progressive Democratic candidate, Mary Ellen Balchunis, and Meehan was reelected 57.3% to 42.7%. The DCCC spent all their loot in PA-08, an open seat, that Hillary actually lost (narrowly) to Trump, 448.2-48.0% (an outcome almost identical to Romney's fractional win in 2012.) Steve Santarsiero, the Democrat ic candidate outspent the Brian Fitzpatrick, the GOP candidate, $2,778,029 to $2,009,177 and the DCCC (+ Pelosi'sPAC) spent another $7 million! Fitzpatrick still beat Santartsiero by around 35,000 votes, 54.5% to 45.5%.

• SC-01, disgraced former Governor Mark Sanford's district, isn't an area where the DCCC has any expectations but it's a relatively well-educated suburban district and easily the wealthiest in the state. It's the only district in South Carolina were Hillary out-performed Obama, albeit only slightly. Romney beat Obama 58.3% to 40.2%. Many of his supporters were repulsed by Trump, who only beat Clinton 53.5% to 40.4%. Democrat Dimitri Cherny didn't offer Sanford much of a challenge, raising just $27,562 to Sanford's $741,639. Sanford beat him by about 70,000 votes, 58.6% to 36.9%. I don't see a Democrat winning a seat like this in 2018... but the DCCC should start working the district now with an eye on the future. And that brings us to Texas.

Statewide Hillary out-performed Obama 2012 3,867,816 (43.4%) to 3,294,440 (41%). Where Romney took 57% of the Texas vote, though, Trump only managed 52.6%. But the statewide totals don't tell us much about the districts where Clinton really-- and unexpectedly-- excelled. There are 36 congressional districts in the state, 11 held by Democrats and 25 held by Republicans. Of the Republican-held seats, Hillary out-performed Obama in 17 and under-performed Obama in 6. There was virtually no difference between Obama and Hillary in 2 districts. Generally speaking, the better-off, better-educated suburban districts is where Hillary did so much better than Obama and in the much poorer, more rural districts she under-performed Obama. Her most significant increases over Obama were in these districts:

• TX-02 (Ted Poe-- Houston and northern suburbs), where Trump won 52.4% to 43.1%. Romney won the district 62.9% to 35.6%
• TX-03 (Sam Johnson-- northern Dallas suburbs), where Trump won 54.8% to 40.6%. Romney won the district 59.9% to 38.6%
• TX-07 (John Culberson-- Houston and Harris County suburbs), where Hillary won 48.5% to 47.1%. Romney won the district 62.9% to 35.6%
• TX-10 (Mike McCaul-- Austin-Houston corridor), where Trump won 52.3% to 43.2%. Romney won the district 59.1% to 38.8%
• TX-21 (Lamar Smith-- Austin-San Antonio corridor), where Trump won 52.5% to 42.5%. Romney won the district 59.8% to 37.9%
• TX-22 (Pete Olson-- southern Houston suburbs), where Trump won 52.1% to 44.2%. Romney won the district 62.1% to 36.7%
• TX-23 (Will Hurd-- San Antonio exurbs and west Texas borderlands; 71% Latino), where Hillary won 49.8% to 46.4%. Romney won the district 50.7% to 48.1%
• TX-24 (Kenny Marchant-- Ft. Worth suburbs), where Trump won 50.7% to 44.5%. Romney won the district 60.4% to 38.0%
• TX-32 (Pete Sessions-- northern Dallas and suburbs), where Hillary won 48.5% to 46.6%. Romney won the district 57.0% to 41.5%

The DCCC ignored all these districts except TX-23, where they ran an ultra-conservative sleazy Blue Dog who had already been rejected by the voters, Pete Gallego. They wasted $4.7 on independent expenditures for the worthless Gallego who always voted with Republicans when he was in Congress amassing a terrible voting record and ingratiating himself with crooked lobbyists all over DC. The DCCC should be looking for progressive Democrats to challenge Hurd, John Culberson, Lamar Smith, Mike McCaul, Pete Olson and Ted Poe.

• VA-10 is Barbara Comstock's blue northern Virginia district where Hillary beat Trump 52.2% to 42.2%, outperforming Obama's 49.2% in 2012, where he lost to Romney. Once again, the DCCC picked a crap unelectable candidate, LuAnn Bennett, and wasted over $6 million dollars on her., only to see her do far worse than Clinton, losing to the entirely unaccomplished Comstock by over 20,000 votes, 52.9% to 47.1%. The Democrats need to stop recruiting and wasting money on corrupt conservative candidates. With Israel gone, there's at least a chance , a small chance, this will begin to happen.

[Two notes: there are plenty of other districts Democrats can win in 2018, districts where Hillary didn't do better than Obama did-- like against Peter King (NY), Paul Ryan (WI), but that isn't the purview of this post. And the mirror image of this post-- about Democrats in districts Trump won-- will be up mañana.] and by the way, you can contribute to the progressive candidates Blue America has endorsed for 2017 and 2018 races by tapping on the thermometer on the right.

Wednesday, Ron Brownstein covered the changing House outlook for The Atlantic and remarked on how Trump and Trumpism are sparking something of a realignment of some white non-urban blue collar areas in a redder direction, while better off, professional suburban areas are continuing to trend towards Democrats. "As the share of voters who split their tickets has steadily declined since the 1970s," he wrote, "each party’s roster of seats in the House increasingly reflects its voting coalition in presidential elections. As a new Atlantic analysis has shown, the Republican House majority now relies predominantly on districts where whites exceed their share of the national population, that are located mostly outside of urban centers, and that contain fewer white college graduates than the national average. Democrats, in turn, rely on an upstairs-downstairs coalition of districts where minorities, college-educated whites, or both exceed their share of the population-- the vast majority of them in metropolitan areas."

The sharply polarized nature of Trump’s appeal-- which has generated magnetic attraction for blue-collar and non-urban whites, broad opposition among minorities, and unusually high resistance among white-collar whites-- has the potential to deepen this sorting process, analysts in both parties agree. The vividly contrasting voting patterns of 2016, with Trump posting big gains over Romney in heavily blue-collar House districts and Clinton improving over Obama in a broad swathe of white-collar districts, may have offered a fast-forward preview of how the House may evolve in coming years. “It was like looking decades in the future, and this is what it looks like,” said GOP strategist Liam Donovan, referring to the 2016 results. “If you just push down the gas and let it rip [on the class resorting], this is what it is going to look like.”

All initial evidence suggests Trump’s presidency-- with its deeply polarizing approaches to immigration, trade, health care, climate, and foreign policy-- will widen, rather than narrow, the fissures that emerged around in his election. That means for 2018 and beyond, each party’s electoral target list may grow increasingly focused on the members caught, in effect, behind enemy lines: the last few Democrats representing heavily blue-collar districts and the larger number of Republicans in mostly white-collar suburban seats.

The House members most immediately at risk in this segmenting process are the roughly three dozen of them representing districts that voted for the other party’s presidential ticket last year. That’s still well below the level of ticket-splitting seen as recently as two decades ago: 109 districts in 1996 and 86 in 2000 supported House members from one party and presidential candidates from the other. But it represents a slight uptick from the 26 split districts in the 2012 presidential race.

...Using the DCCC figures, 18 of the 23 Clinton-district Republicans are in seats where the share of college-educated whites exceeds the national average. Eight of those 18 are in so-called “hi-hi” districts, where both the share of minorities and white college graduates exceeds the national average. Those seats are the backbone of the modern Democratic House caucus: One hundred and eight seats fit that description and Democrats now hold 87 of them.

Clinton’s success in so many Republican-held districts with high white-education levels reflects Trump’s struggle among those voters. In 2016, Republican Representatives like Barbara Comstock in northern Virginia, Patrick Meehan and Ryan Costello outside Philadelphia, Leonard Lance in affluent northwest New Jersey, Martha McSally in Tucson, and Mike Coffman outside Denver successfully distanced themselves from doubts about Trump. Democrats are confident that will grow more difficult once those members are operating in harness with Trump as part of a unified Republican government that will, if history is any guide, vote together on most key issues.

Lance, in an interview, crystallized the strategy many of these Republicans are likely to employ under Trump: stress their willingness to work across party lines, look for opportunities to display independence from the president (Lance quickly criticized Trump’s executive order restricting immigration), and emphasize the economic issues where the views of their well-educated and affluent constituents most closely align with GOP priorities. “We have to reach out to all voters … and point out where our views are consistent with the views of well-educated constituents, and that includes, for example, a tax policy,” he said. “I think it’s important to have tax policies that will further the American economy, and many of the constituents whom I serve are involved in economic activity in New York, or in New Jersey in the pharmaceutical or the medical-device and the telecommunications industries. And these are vital parts of the national economy.”