Congress Voted Overwhelmingly To Remove Confederate Statues From The Capitol

Yesterday the House passed H.R.7573 which directs "the Architect of the U.S. Capitol to replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney with a bust of Thurgood Marshall, to remove certain statues from areas of the Capitol which are accessible to the public, to remove all statues of individuals who voluntarily served Confederate States of America displayed in Capitol. The vote was 305-113, every Democrat, as well as 72 Republicans (+ independent Justin Amash) voting in favor. 113 Republicans voted against the resolution including:

Earl Carter (GA)
Doug LaMalfa (CA)
Alex Mooney (WV)
Jason Smith (MO)
Roger Williams (TX)
Ted Yoho (FL)

The Republican House leadership was split, with McCarthy and Scalise voting for the bill and Liz Cheney voting with the racists against it. The bill would cause the removal of 11 Confederate statues which have been publicly displayed and turning loyal Americans' stomachs since the Jim Crow era. Each was contributed by a Southern state. Arkansas has decided to replace its two statues of Confederate traitors with statues of Johnny Cash and civil rights activist Daisy Gatson Bates. Florida is taking back its statue of Edmund Kirby Smith, a Confederate general, and contributing one of civil rights activist Mary McLeod Bethune. Each state gets to contribute two statues for display in the Capitol.
In case you forgot who Taney was, he's the asshole Chief Justice the Supreme Court (1836-1864, when he died at 87, completely senile). He's best known for the Dred Scott decision, which he wrote and which says that blacks could not be considered citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in American territories. He was pro-Confederacy but did all he could to sabotage Lincoln instead of resigning from the Court. The Dred Scott ruling is widely considered to be one of the worst-- if not the worst-- Supreme Court decisions ever made and Taney is considered the worst supreme Court Chief Justice in history. He wrote that blacks-- free or slaves-- had always been "regarded as beings of an inferior order, altogether unfit to associate with the white race... and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

According to The Hill, "The House has taken additional legislative actions this week to eliminate Confederate imagery. Earlier this week, the House passed its version of the annual defense policy bill with a provision to require renaming military bases honoring Confederate officers. And starting Thursday, the House is slated to take up a government spending package with measures to order the National Park Service to remove “all physical Confederate commemorative works” within 180 days and prohibit using taxpayer funds for construction projects on military installations named after Confederate officers unless they are being changed. House Democrats are further planning to unveil voting rights legislation later this week in honor of Lewis. It’s expected to build upon a bill that Democrats passed in December to restore a provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that established a process for states with histories of voter suppression to obtain federal clearance before making changes to election laws."

None of this will pass the Senate until McConnell is either dead or deposed and until Trump is driven out of the White House (or dead).

Progressive Democrat Julie Oliver, running to replace racist Republican Roger Williams in central Texas, told us-- after Williams' vote against removing the Confederate statues-- that "We should hold no place of honor for those who who were in open revolt to the United States of America in defense of slavery and white supremacy. From slavery to Jim Crow, redlining, the War on Drugs, criminalization of poverty, mass incarceration-- racism is this country's original sin. We can't stop fighting for an America based on the principles of racial, economic, and environmental justice. In this moment of national pain, following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and too many others, when thousands of Texans have risked their lives to get in the streets and speak out against racial injustice and institutional racism, Rep. Williams’ vote to enshrine those who glorified racialized chattel slavery is out of step with the majority of Americans, the people in this district and, yet again, puts him on the wrong side of history. Texas deserves so much better."

We spoke with two more progressive Democrats running strong popular races in the South, Lisa Ring (coastal Georgia) and Adam Christensen (north central Florida). Both of the Trumpist incumbents, respectively Buddy Carter and Ted Yoho, voted against removing the Confederate statues. Lisa: "Should we really be surprised that 1st Congressional District Representative, Buddy Carter of Georgia voted against removing statues of Confederates and defenders of white supremacy from the U.S. Capitol? Since 2017, I have been vying for his seat because he refuses to represent the people of Coastal Georgia and has no problem saying so. From telling his constituents that he didn’t care what they wanted when they begged him not to take away their healthcare at one of his last in-person town halls, to being the only legislator in Georgia ready to drill for oil off the Georgia coast, Carter consistently chooses corporate interests that line his pockets, or aligning with the current administration to advance his career rather than listening to the will of the people. Of course Carter remains out of touch with our changing times and the collective will of the American people as he supports 'states’ rights' and a heritage of oppression. I would expect nothing more of him."

Adam Christensen is up for the seat Yoho is abandoning and told us this morning that "Yoho’s vote today is just one of the many times that he has been on the wrong side of history. He has previously has-- disagreed with the reauthorization of violence against women act in 2018 and again in 2019-- he does not want the equal right amendment or the survivor bill of rights to pass. He was 1 of only 2 people to vote against the Emit Till Anti-Lynching bill, and has repeatedly stated that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. Yoho does not represent my community or the people who live here in north central Florida. He is a political hack and he will not be missed when he retires in November. What we are focused on now is dismantling his legacy and the political infrastructure he built here. Because if his donors and backing just puts up another person with his ideology then nothing has fundamentally changed with his retirement."

Cook: Trump Is Dragging Down Republican Candidates With Him

Cook is usually a lagging indicator. They do not move on a dime. If they move a race from "leans Republican" to "toss up," it probably means you should expect a big loss for the GOP. Yesterday, Amy Walter, one of their top prognosticators, used the word "tsunami." It's July; I would interpret that to mean Cook foresees a mass GOP drowning in November-- an actual; threat to to basic well-being of the party's existence. This isn't just about swing states and swing districts-- you can start anticipating painful Republican losses in "solid red" states like Alaska, Texas, Arizona, Georgia and Montana. And that isn't just about electoral votes but about Republicans up for reelection-- or running for-- congressional and state and county legislative seats as well. "This election," wrote Walter, "is looking more like a Democratic tsunami than simply a Blue wave. President Trump, mired in some of the lowest job approval ratings of his presidency, is trailing Biden by significant margins in key battleground states like Pennsylvania (8 points), Michigan (9 points), and Wisconsin (9 points). He’s even running behind Biden in his firewall states of Florida and North Carolina."

She doesn't understand the difference between a Blue wave and an anti-red wave. There's no enthusiasm for Biden or the crappy party he "leads." All the enthusiasm is for stuffing Trump down a toilet and flushing. But the Beltway insiders will never understand that and will continue babbling like chimps about "a Blue wave." Fine, who cares; it ends up with the same results anyway.

Cook changed some of their electoral college predictions "to reflect this reality." All have moved towards the Democrats and all are laughably behind reality. Their best predictions are always the day after the election anyway. They move Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska’s 2nd district from toss up to lean Democrat. And Maine, which for whatever insane reason, was in the lean Democrat column moved to likely Democrat. Cook is so funny. They also moved Maine's 2nd district from likely Republican to just lean Republican. And she wrote that "Georgia has joined Arizona, North Carolina and Florida in the Toss Up column, although, at this point, Biden would be slightly favored to win at least Arizona and Florida."

Even Republican strategists she spoke with understand that Trump has now reached "a permanent loss of trust and faith of the majority of voters. In talking with strategists on both sides this last week, it’s also clear that Trump is dragging Republican congressional candidates with him as well. Plugged in strategists on both sides tell us that Trump is running behind in districts he easily carried in 2016. As one GOP strategist told us this week, 'I’d be surprised if any House GOP challenger is able to outperform Trump-- they are tied to him.' Meanwhile, Democratic Senate candidates-- even those in second and third-tier races-- are pulling in eye-popping second-quarter fundraising totals."




I spoke to a handful of candidates running strong in prohibitively red districts. Iowa progressive, J.D. Scholten, pointed out that his right-wing Trumpist opponent, Randy Feenstra "ran his primary campaign on the theme that he's best positioned to 'deliver' for Trump. But Trump's policies have systematically ravaged Iowa's farmers and rural communities in everything from the disastrous trade war to abuses of the Renewable Fuel Standard to corporate bailouts. Iowans don't need nor want another career politician who's beholden to corporate interests and afraid to stand up to power. We understand why folks voted for Trump-- they were looking for change and solutions, but unfortunately, that's not what we got. Our campaign is gaining traction with Trump voters, Republicans, and voters across the political spectrum because we're fighting for them: farmers, workers, and rural communities."

Georgia progressive Lisa Ring told me that through her experiences she's concluded that the most dangerous thing we can do is assume we can predict political outcomes. "Every action," she said, "has the potential of harming or propelling a campaign but the ever-changing nature of politics renders an important development, insignificant within hours. In general, the failures of the Trump administration should be harmful to every legislator or candidate who remains loyal to it. However, it is what Democrats choose to do with the failings of the GOP that will make a difference. Or not.

"Simply pointing out that Rep. Buddy Carter is a Trump lackey who has followed his every direction in order to gain Trump’s official endorsement, is not enough," she continued. "Instead, I must remind the people of my district that Carter and Trump worked hand in hand to destroy the middle class, working class, and disadvantaged, by taking away whatever healthcare they had, letting small businesses fail, allowing our infrastructure to crumble, protections to be rolled back, and failing the millions of unemployed, as well as the millions of infected Americans who were provided no assistance and no leadership during a pandemic that is not even close to being over. 2016 and beyond, should have taught us not to rely on polls or predictors, but rather to continue to focus on the issues, and reach voters one on one. These times are unprecedented and we cannot sit back and analyze with numbers, beliefs that defy all reason. Instead let us hit the streets(virtually, if it must be) and connect truthfully to people who need answers and solutions to the very real problems they face daily."

Texan Julie Oliver shared something that has changed in a pretty big way since the 2018 campaign. "What we’ve seen over the last two election cycles is a growing number of 'independent' voters in TX-25. Some folks share that they’re former Republicans who have lost their party and will never vote for another Trumpublican, like Rep. Roger Williams, again. Sometimes we encounter these newly independent voters when we are phone-banking, or in the pre-pandemic world when we were able to canvass, but what we are seeing in this election cycle that really didn’t happen in the midterms is that many former Republicans reach out to our campaign unsolicited."

Yesterday, Astead Herndon wrote specifically about the Trumpist base in Georgia and Arizona being nonplussed about the GOP establishment Senate candidates. "Many Republican candidates face a perplexing electoral landscape this year, given that Mr. Trump’s conduct has endeared him to the party’s most conservative groups, but has soured some suburban moderates and seniors who are vital parts of any swing state coalition. These candidates are walking a tightrope, made more difficult by a voter base that doesn’t just want to elect Republicans, but rather loyal foot soldiers who take on Mr. Trump’s political and cultural enemies. It is the long-term political war over how Trumpism is best expressed-- not the short-term battle over Mr. Trump himself-- and how a party that has been driven by early-morning tweets for four years will seek to survive the next 40."

In the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections, a record number of House Republicans chose not to seek re-election rather than face conflict with the conservative base, and even a favorable Senate map saw Republicans lose in states like Arizona and Nevada.

With Mr. Trump on the ballot this year, it will be even harder for candidates to paper over the differences, and the uneasy relationship between the party’s most right-wing voters and the statewide Republicans like Ms. Loeffler and Ms. McSally who rely on their votes is bursting into the open.

Governors in both Arizona and Georgia are currently confronting this political challenge, after opening up their states’s economies at the urging of the president and those in the media who support him, only to face pressure to reverse course after coronavirus cases surged.

Polling also shows that Ms. Loeffler and Ms. McSally are underdogs in their respective races, facing an energized Democratic electorate in addition to their inner-party wrangling.

...A recent survey of Arizona voters from the New York Times and Siena College found Ms. McSally trailing her Democratic opponent, the former astronaut and U.S. Navy Captain Mark Kelly, by nine percentage points.

In a recent Fox News poll of the Arizona race, just 73 percent of Republicans supported Ms. McSally, while 88 percent of Democrats supported Mr. Kelly.

“They don’t buy her as a bona fide very conservative Republican,” said Chuck Coughlin, a longtime Republican political consultant in Arizona.

The candidates’ struggles speak to how real divisions among Republicans have been obscured by Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016, and could erupt again should he lose in November.

...Several Republicans in Arizona and Georgia said in interviews that the problem is not with Ms. Loeffler’s or Ms. McSally’s messages, but whether the base is buying the candidates as authentic.  As a sign of their shared troubles among Republicans, some of the most negative publicity for both senators in the past year has come courtesy of Fox News, the cable outlet that is often sympathetic to the president.

...“The electorate has changed a lot,” Mr. Coughlin said, adding that the current Republican Party has “moved away from that narrative that people were originally attracted to. And in my view, has become one that’s reactive to the identity politics of the left.”

Trump's Worst Scandal Yet-- And This Time Republicans DO Care, At Least Many Do

Bullets by Chip Proser

If, as is often said, Texas is the GOP's California, then TX-13 (Amarillo) is the Democrats' CA-12 (San Francisco). One has a PVI of R+33 and the other's is D+37. In 2016, Trump scored a nice solid 79.9% in TX-13-- but just 8.7% in CA-12. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represents one and Mac Thornberry, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, represents the other. For that reason, it was no small matter, politically, to hear that Mac Thornberry told reporters on a Defense Writers Group conference call in a discussion of Russian bounties that "We need to get to the bottom of it and we need to do it now. Again, this week before Congress leaves on the Fourth of July."

In matters of partisan politics, Thornberry is a lockstep Republican hack. But he is serious about national security, serious about the U.S. military and his Democratic colleagues do not see him as some kind of terminally-impaired fringe nut like Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Gym Jordan (R-OH), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Jim Banks (R-IN) or Devin Nunes (R-CA). Thornberry's comments were reported Tuesday morning by Stars And Stripes in a piece by Caitin Kenney on how bipartisan and bicameral leaders of the Armed Services Committees want answers from the Pentagon and White House about reports that a Russian military intelligence group had paid bounties to kill American troops in Afghanistan. Trump is tap-dancing... desperately.

The House Armed Services Committee’s leadership has requested a briefing by the Pentagon for Monday or Tuesday on the intelligence to understand its credibility and how intelligence officials arrived at their conclusion, Thornberry said. The Pentagon had not responded to their request yet, he added.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, also said Monday that the House committee needs answers on the intelligence from the Pentagon and when it was known, in order to hold appropriate administration officials and the Russian government accountable.

“If the reports are true, that the administration knew about this Russian operation and did nothing, they have broken the trust of those who serve and the commitment to their families to ensure their loved one’s safety,” he said in a prepared statement.

A meeting about this intelligence occurred at the White House in March with President Donald Trump, according to news reports. On Sunday, Trump tweeted he and Vice President Mike Pence had not been briefed on the intelligence.

Trump later tweeted, “Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or [the vice president.] Possibly another fabricated Russia Hoax, maybe by the Fake News.”

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Monday reiterated Trump’s stance that intelligence must be verified before it is brought to him.

“There are dissenting opinions within the intelligence community, and I can confirm with you right now that there is no consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations,” she told reporters during a news briefing.

McEnany also said eight members of Congress were being briefed Monday afternoon at the White House on the intelligence, but she did not say who was in attendance.

Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) took to Twitter to write he had attended the White House briefing Monday and learned the New York Times “used unconfirmed [intelligence] in an ONGOING investigation into targeted killing of American soldiers.”

“Now it’s impossible to finish the investigation. All [because] the @nytimes will do anything to damage @realdonaldtrump, even if it means compromising [national] security,” he wrote.

Banks is a Navy Reserve officer who served in Afghanistan in 2014 and 2015, according to his official biography. He tweeted the alleged bounties were placed during the time he was serving in the country.

Mitchell Hailstone, Banks’ communications director, confirmed in an email that the other attendees were Republican Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Michael McCaul of Texas, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Elise Stefanik of New York, Chris Stewart of Utah, and Thornberry.

Thornberry said earlier Monday that he only knows about the intelligence from news reporting and Trump’s tweet that he was not briefed about the matter is “a very concerning statement.”

“But anything with any hint of credibility that would endanger our service members, much less put a bounty on their lives, to me should have been briefed immediately to the commander in chief and a plan to deal with that situation,” he said.

Thornberry also said he wants to know the timeline on “when we knew what” concerning the intelligence and in regard to the March briefing at the White House reported by news outlets.

“I don’t know how far this goes back, when we knew what. So, it is essential I think that Congress know it. And depending on those answers, it may be appropriate for people who should have briefed the president to be removed if they did not follow their responsibilities,” he said.

Claude Chafin, a House Armed Services Committee spokesman for Thornberry, said the congressman was briefed at the White House, though he still believes the full committee should also be briefed.

Ted Lieu (D-CA) is a senior member of both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Foreign Relations Committee-- and is a full colonel in the U.S. Air Forces Reserves. He has a way with words. Last night he told me that "Trump either knew about the Russian bounty and did nothing, or he didn't know and is criminally derelict in his duties as Commander in Chief. Either way he isn't fit for office." Right to the point-- Lieu can always be counted on the talk straight and not waffle and beat around the bush.

Mike Siegel is running for the central Texas congressional seat occupied by Trump enabler Michael McCaul. McCaul has been covering up for Trump and Siegel is talking with 10th district voters about it. "As usual," he said yesterday, "Michael McCaul is protecting Trump, issuing statements that confuse the issue and try to relieve the COMMANDER IN CHIEF from his responsibility for US troops abroad. There are only two options: Trump is terrified of Putin and took no action, or didn't read or listen to his daily briefings. Treason or incompetence. Could very well be both. Suffice to say, we need to remove Trump and his enablers as soon as humanly possible."

Georgia progressive Democrat Lisa Ring is taking on Trumpist incumbent Buddy Carter, who is helping to cover up Trump's treason. Lisa wrote that "We have a president who has taken no action after learning the Russian government paid bounties to have American servicemembers killed in Afghanistan. And we have a congressman who represents a district with four military bases who says nothing about it. As a mother of a soldier, I am appalled at our political leadership and their failure to stand up to this atrocity. Our first action should be to create an independent commission to fully investigate these deaths in order to move forward swiftly and with international support."

CNN has reported that "numerous former senior intelligence officials are pushing back on the White House denials, saying it was 'absurd,' 'ridiculous,' and 'inconceivable' that the President would not have been briefed on such critical intelligence that potentially put US soldiers in harm's way. Trump's "response has incensed former members of the intelligence community. Not only should the President have been made aware of such intelligence, they say, but the notion that the President wasn't briefed because there was a difference of opinion among intelligence agencies is 'inconceivable,' said one former senior intelligence official, especially since it involved Russia. 'That's ridiculous,' the former official said about the White House's claim, adding that it is 'hard to believe' the intelligence community shared what it was hearing about Russia with allies like the British and not at least inform the President that it was a thread they were following. A second former intelligence official called the notion that the President is not informed unless there is unanimity and 100% certainty 'absurd. You would have trouble getting unanimity on tomorrow being Tuesday,' the source told CNN on Monday." Trump and Pence were both given written reports about the bounties.

Multiple former senior intelligence officials dismissed the White House's notion that intelligence would not reach the President simply because of dissent or because it hadn't been verified.

"You don't put things in the President's daily brief only when they are completely corroborated and verified because then it is not intelligence anymore; then it's fact," David Priess, a former CIA officer during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, told CNN in an interview on Monday.

Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff who also served as senior director of the White House Situation Room, said intelligence rarely operates in the world of black and white. Instead, agents and officials often craft "assessments with assigned levels of confidence," which are "often presented with dissenting views," said Pfeiffer.

The 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden was based on intelligence that some characterized as 50-50, Pfeiffer added.

"Presidents are briefed on credible intelligence based on the best validation of the information we can provide, said one former senior intelligence official. "It's not a Court of law, it's an intelligence briefing."

Intelligence agents constantly make analytical judgments in the absence of absolute confirmation, the official said, adding that when the lives of US service men and women may be at stake, "we have an absolute duty to warn while we are attempting to validate the quality of the reporting."

Since the intelligence failures of the Iraq War, assessments now more explicitly lay out the level of confidence that various agencies have in the intelligence being reported, said another former senior official, adding that if the President was briefed only on things that were 100% certain, "his PDB would be very thin."

Marc Polymeropoulos, a former CIA officer who oversaw operations in Europe and Russia before retiring last summer, said it appeared that the Trump administration was "playing verbal gymnastics with the bounty issue" from Trump's Sunday night tweet, to McEnany's comments to the statement from Ratcliffe on Monday night.

"They are peeling back the onion, from denial to acknowledgment," said Polymeropoulos. "There seems to be little question that multiple streams of the raw intelligence was credible, with only a question of a need for further corroboration."

...Intelligence of this nature would normally be shared with top lawmakers on Capitol Hill who make up the "Gang of Eight."

On Monday, eight GOP lawmakers were briefed on the matter at the White House. Among them was Rep. Mac Thornberry, the top Republican on House Armed Services Committee, who indicated that he agreed with the idea that Trump should have been briefed, even if the intelligence was not completely verified.

"What the President and the DNI have said is that the President was not briefed, which to me is a very concerning statement," Thornberry told reporters. "Anything with any hint of credibility that would endanger our service members, much less put a bounty on their lives, to me should have been briefed immediately to the commander in chief and a plan to deal with that situation."

The US official familiar with the latest information told CNN that intelligence of this nature, with risk to US troops, should be assumed to be true until it is otherwise disproven.

Multiple former senior intelligence officials also said they were stunned that this threat had not been mentioned in intelligence products at a lower level than the PDB, which are routinely shared with oversight committees on Capitol Hill, and, at very least, the Gang of Eight.

One of those former senior intelligence officials told CNN that in a normal administration, "someone would have been ordered to get on a plane and tell the Russians to cut it out."

"That doesn't seem to have happened here. Why not? And why wasn't Congress briefed?" the official said.

A select group of Democrats is scheduled to receive a briefing from the White House on Tuesday. In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speculated as to the reason the intelligence may have been kept from Trump.

"One key question is if intelligence officials did not tell Trump about the intel that Russians offered the Taliban bounties to kill US troops because they were concerned that he would tell Putin," Pelosi said.

A senior Republican official echoed that point, telling CNN: If he wasn't briefed, why wasn't he briefed. Did his staff know he didn't want to hear anything about Russia? Is this about making a deal with the Taliban? Why do all roads lead to Russia?"

How Big Will The Anti-Trump Wave Be In November? Very Big

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal's Andrew Restuccia reported that the Trump regime was taking whatever focus they once had on the pandemic, in other directions. "The White House coronavirus task force," he wrote, "is meeting less frequently, the government’s top infectious disease expert is getting little face time with President Trump, and the administration’s virus-testing coordinator is returning to his previous job. U.S. coronavirus deaths have surpassed 100,000 112,000 and health experts say the pandemic remains a serious concern, but Mr. Trump and his advisers have made a strategic decision to shift focus, according to administration officials and others familiar with the matter. The move predates the nationwide protests following the killing of a black man in Minneapolis police custody, which have captured the attention of both the American public and the White House-- and brought tens of thousands out of lockdown. The president and his aides have turned to issues they believe will animate the president’s conservative base ahead of the election while projecting confidence that the country is recovering economically." Yeah... like lying about unemployment numbers and job creation promises.

Over the weekend-- Friday thru Sunday-- the U.S. added over 67,000 new cases of coronavirus (25,393 + 22,836 +) and another 2,500 deaths (975 + 706 +). In terms of morbidity, U.S. deaths (112,096) exceed the combined deaths of the next three hardest hot countries the U.K. (40,465), Brazil (35,957) and Italy (33,846). And even as early states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Michigan, Louisiana, Delaware and Washington have gotten the pandemic under control (basically by ignoring Trump), the pandemic is raging even harder now than ever in California, Texas, North Carolina, Florida, Nebraska, Iowa, Arizona, Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Indiana, Georgia, South Dakota and Utah. This is anything but a time to take focus away from it.

Sunday Mark Murray reported for the Meet the Press crew that the new poll for NBC News and the Wall Street Journal that 8 out of 10 voters believe that things are out of control in the U.S., with majorities still concerned about the spread of the coronavirus, pessimistic about the economy returning to normal before next year and down on Señor Trumpanzee's ability to unite the nation. Voters don't seem thrilled with Trump's chaotic, dysfunctional style any longer. Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research told Murray that "Out of Control" summa up what voters are thinking about America today. "[It’s] one of the few things Americans can agree upon, and the one finding that we can definitively state given the tumult and torment of the past 12 days... Against Biden, going back to last July, here are Trump’s numbers-- 42 percent, 41 percent, 44 percent, 44 percent, 43 percent, 42 percent, and again 42 percent. The 45th president has yet to get to 45 percent, let alone closer than a 6-point deficit against the former vice president."

Asked to compare Biden with Trump, significant numbers of people found Biden to be more competent and effective (47 to 38%), better able to deal with the pandemic (48 to 37%), dealing with health care (49 to 34%) and having the ability to bring the country together (51 to 26%).

Among voters living in the top 2020 battleground states-- Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin-- Biden’s combined lead over Trump is 8 points, 50 percent to 42 percent.

...Democrats hold an 11-point advantage on congressional preference, with 51 percent of all voters preferring Democrats in control of Congress, compared with 40 percent who want Republicans in charge.

Democrats held a 6-point advantage on this question in January.

That kind of advantage indicates the anti-red wave I've been predicting for November. It means that Democratic candidates are likely to be swept into office, not just in swing districts, like in NY-24 and TX-23 but in redder districts where independent voters are abandoning the Republicans in droves. I spoke with 2018 candidates who are running again this year, Lisa Ring in Georgia and Julie Oliver is Texas, each of whom is running in exactly that kind of district-- with a PVIs of R+11... so districts which would never even be considered a battle ground by the DCCC but where each held Trumpist incumbents to closer calls where gaps look more closable now. Julie told me that she's "been all over Texas-- and ultimately people understand that Roger Williams is an out-of-touch wealthy elite who is only in Congress to reward himself. And he has totally abased himself to Donald Trump-- a historically corrupt racist who pits Americans against one another solely to enrich himself & his family. But it's not enough for us to just not be 'not Trump.' That bar couldn't be any lower-- and I think Texans realize that the fight for economic justice means we're actively engaged in policy that stops working for giant corporations and starts building a Texas that works for working people."

Lisa Ring told me that progressives like herself "been underestimated for too long now, but while some folks were distracted, others remained focused on the bigger picture. I have been working in this highly 'red' district for 7 years now. I am not alone and our district has shown itself to be not so conservative on the issues and when it comes to the integrity of candidates. For years, we have been organizing the 17 counties (most of them rural) of this district and speaking to all people, not just Democrats. We are providing leadership and solutions in an area historically controlled by the Georgia good ol' boys. This election we have everything on our side as the incompetence of our current administration and their self-serving agenda are opening people's eyes. Average people are disgusted with how little compassion is shown for black lives, and as Trump's leadership would have it, brown lives, aging lives, young lives, any lives not wealthy and in power. Our mission is to keep the pressure on and the truth at the forefront. Trump only advances through lies and manipulation. We must not let his false narratives paint a deceptively rosy picture of lower unemployment rates, fewer COVID-19 deaths, an economy moving toward stability, and leadership that cares about the wellbeing of our citizens. We must support one another and the growing number of political, military, and community leaders denouncing Trump and insisting on a new direction for this nation. And most important, we must remember that Trump did not rise to power alone. Congressmen, senators, governors, and local governments were complicit. Now is the time to stand up together to throw them out and replace them with intelligent,  compassionate leaders. Our nation must, and will do better."

The Brainwashing Of America-- Will It Re-Elect Trump And His GOP Allies In November?

What Campaign? by Nancy Ohanian

This morning, Washington Post reporters Meg Kelly and Elyse Samuels, did a blockbuster report about how, Trump is creating an alternative reality online about coronavirus. In this alternative world-- shared by millions of Americans through Fox News, hate-talk radio and the rest of the right-wing media, Trump has successfully met the challenge of the pandemic. At a news conference on May 11th, Trump said "We have met the moment and we have prevailed. Americans do whatever it takes to find solutions, pioneer breakthroughs, and harness the energies we need to achieve a total victory."

In the real-- and well-documented-- world, Trump and his regime have lied their way through the pandemic-- from the first day until today. His Twitter and Facebook feeds tell a bizarro-world story, dishonest narratives that have attempted to illustrate and amplify a successful (but bogus) picture of the response. "The Trump administration’s mishandling of key moments in the novel coronavirus outbreak has been well documented," wrote Kelly and Samuels. Early travel restrictions from China and Europe were meant to buy time, but inaction or poor planning squandered much of the benefit. Delays in testing allowed the virus to spread across the country largely undetected. A shortage of personal protective equipment while cases surged overwhelmed hospitals and health-care workers. The president promoted unproven, and sometimes dangerous, medical approaches to fighting the disease, in some cases with potentially deadly consequences. He misrepresented how quickly a vaccine will be available.

Trump and his people are working hard to blanket the zone with his parallel universe version of what happened. "The campaign has spent $32.6 million on Facebook ads since January 2019, more than double the Facebook ad spending of presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. And campaign officials spent the past four years rigorously building a digital infrastructure to connect with voters not only through on social media, but with online polls, email lists and rally registration forms. In other words, when the 2020 election went online only, the Trump team was ready. Trump and the White House often say they turn to social media because a hostile, left-leaning news media does not depict Trump’s achievements accurately. The Fact Checker video team analyzed thousands of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube posts and ads from Trump, his campaign and a long list of surrogates. The data revealed the backbone of a five-point strategy to tell their version of the coronavirus story: rewriting mistakes, highlighting achievements, deflecting blame, declaring victory and creating distraction."

The Facts

Nothing to see here

In the first phase of the outbreak, Trump and his allies consistently played down the threat of the virus. Trump held eight campaign rallies between Jan. 21 (when covid-19 was confirmed in the United States) and March 2. His speeches focused on just about everything else-- at one point referring to concerns about the coronavirus as the Democrats’ “new hoax,” akin to the Russia investigation and the Ukraine-related impeachment probe.

The Fact Checker collected data of social media posts from Brandwatch, a digital consumer intelligence company, Crowdtangle, a social media analytics tool owned by Facebook, and Nick Monaco at the Digital Intelligence Lab. The data shows that Trump’s conversation about the coronavirus online was minimal in late January and February, even though Trump in late January announced that he would impose some travel restrictions on non-U. S. citizens traveling from China. His campaign and surrogates echoed the same trend.

Instead, analysis from Brandwatch revealed that Trump’s most talked about topics online included his impeachment trial, Nancy Pelosi, the Second Amendment, and 2020 Democratic primary candidates at the time such as former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Biden.

“When he was getting the intelligence on this back in … January, (if he) took the same level of seriousness about it that other nations were starting to do, had utilized the Defense Production Act fully, which still has not to this day been fully implemented relative to the things that we need and that the businesses in particular could do and have offered to do,” said Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee. “If all of those early pieces had been put in place, you’d have a very different narrative today.”

We’re doing a great job

In early March, as covid-19 cases and deaths started to increase in the United States, Trump’s tone on the virus changed. He started holding regular news briefings with his coronavirus task force and took more tangible steps to fight the spread of the disease.

The refocus on coronavirus was reflected in the Trump campaign’s online rhetoric, too. However, the ways in which he and his campaign talked about covid-19 online were often not based in facts or misrepresented the reality of the situation. For instance his most talked about topics at this time included the terms “Chinese virus” and “Fake News.”

The campaign apparatus promoted videos online that tried to rewrite the narrative. For example, this video, which bashed the media’s response, skipped over February, trying to erase a period of slow intervention by the administration. (Trump in February also kept saying that the virus would soon go away and praised China for its handling of the crisis.) The campaign also shared cherry-picked video clips on social media, highlighting Trump’s comments at news conferences that were inaccurate. Other videos clipped politicians and governor’s statements or used the wrong context for their quotes. The ads inaccurately made it sound as if these people were praising Trump’s response. Lastly, video ads deflected blame to China and used this talking point to attack political rivals such as Biden, Trump’s likely opponent in this year’s presidential contest.

“One of my biggest concerns about the way that the pandemic is already shifting and will continue to shift online political campaigning is that it will drive the discourse to be even more uncivil, to be even more provocative, to be ultimately potentially hateful,” said Rebekah Tromble, professor of media, politics, digital research and ethics at George Washington University.

Give Him A Break by Chip Proser

We’ve won

In mid-April and early May, Trump and his team appeared to all but claim victory over the virus. Fearing economic downfall, they have called for the country to reopen, even while health experts warn of consequences from loosening shutdown restrictions too soon.

“If some areas, cities, states or what have you, jump over those various checkpoints and prematurely open up without having the capability of being able to respond effectively and efficiently, my concern is that we will start to see little spikes that might turn into outbreaks,” said Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “I have been very clear in my message-- to try, to the best extent possible, to go by the guidelines, which have been very well thought out and very well delineated.”

Despite these concerns, Trump’s incentives to reinvigorate the economy only continue to grow. His presidency and candidacy have centered on economic growth, which will become an even greater focal point in the upcoming election.

“He’s the businessman. He’s the person there to lead the economy,” Tromble said. “We’re now in a situation where we’re looking at Great Depression levels of unemployment, and we can’t deny that the economy is in a free fall. And so that particular message is lost unless the Trump administration reshifts to trying to reopen the economy. And that’s very clearly what they’re doing now.”

In addition to the economy, Trump and his team have moved on to discussing new topics online. Their posts and ads have often focused on controversial and inflammatory topics, such as charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn and attacks directed at the news media or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The campaign has also launched ads targeting Biden that include age-related attacks and conspiracy theories about his ties to China.

The White House and Trump campaign declined to comment.

The Bottom Line

It remains to be seen whether this messaging is effective with voters and will affect the way in which Americans remember the pandemic. A Washington Post-Ipsos poll from April 27 to May 4 showed 43 percent of Americans approved of Trump’s handling of the outbreak. While Trump pushes to reopen, some Republican governors are facing pushback for moving into that phase too quickly.

“We expect our presidents to be optimistic about the future,” Steele said. “But there’s also a level of realism in that optimism. Because we know real, we see that and we still see people getting sick and dying around us. And so I think perspective is really what people are looking for."

All presidential campaigns try to portray their candidate in the best possible light, but what is notable about the Trump campaign is that its social media reach allows the campaign to rewrite even the most recent history.

The Post's Jim Hohmann followed up a couple of hours later-- for anyone who didn't grasp what Kelly and Samuels were trying to say in their long, statistic-heavy piece. He wrote that Trump "paints a picture of the alternative reality that the president’s reelection effort is trying to create for low-information voters who don’t follow traditional news organizations."

Congress is crawling with Trump rubber stamps. Georgia congressman Buddy Carter is a perfect example. His progressive opponent, Lisa Ring-- endorsed by People for the American Way this morning-- told us that Carter is "a Trump puppet and has been from the beginning. Not only has he promoted the failed policies and defended the corruption of this administration (indeed, he was one of the legislators who stormed the SCIF, cell phone in hand), he has actively pushed a false narrative about every issue as a self-service for profit and power. His latest push is to praise Trump for both the economy and his handling of COVID-19 and to demonize China and any Democrats pushing financial assistance for ordinary folks. Carter is always looking for a way to profit from any situation. If you follow the money trail, you'll see why Carter, backed by big pharma and the healthcare industry, is blaming China for the pandemic and how the U.S. responded."

Audrey Denney, the progressive candidate in the rural northeast corner of California, sees her opponent, Doug LaMalfa in much the same way Lisa sees Buddy Carter. She told us that while she "would certainly advocate that living in extremely rural counties require us to carefully examine health department data and make sure we are applying effective restrictions in a manner that makes practical sense for our part of the world, communicating a narrative that this virus is in the past is reckless and dangerous. I was dismayed to see Congressman LaMalfa spending the weekend attending anti-mask protests and then going to Memorial Day events where, without any distancing or precautions, was standing side by side some of the most vulnerable among us, our dear veterans."

Doug LaMalfa-- spreading COVID-19 in his district?

J.D. Scholten is a second-time's-the charm candidate-- just like Julie, Audrey, Lisa and Kathy. And he's taking on Steve King, who he nearly beat in 2018. This afternoon, he told us that "During a global pandemic that has cost over 100,000 American lives, Steve King continues to focus on himself. He lavishes Trump's handling of this pandemic, blames his own party's leadership for losing his committee assignments, and posts incessant memes to 'trigger' the left. This isn't leadership. Folks in Iowa's 4th district need a voice of reason, calm, and information-- not more divisiveness and self-promotion."

It's very much the same with Roger Williams, a fully-committed Trump bootlicker in central Texas (TX-25). Julie Oliver told us that Williams has "been lying about voting by mail-- as a byproduct of this pandemic and reasonable fears of getting exposed to the virus from voting in person. Ever since Jim Crow-- and indeed, ever since Reconstruction-- the right to vote has been under attack, explicitly targeting Black and Brown communities. Roger Williams' lying and saying that vote-by-mail is unsafe or somehow more susceptible to fraud is straight out of the same playbook-- to confuse people about voting by making it harder or by delegitimizing the democratic process entirely. We need to expand voting rights in America, end gerrymandering, get big money and unaccountable dark money out of Congress and out of our politics and get our democracy back."

If Missouri Congressman Jason Smith started advertising that he's a Trump puppet, sit wouldn't surprise anyone that he was embracing what everyone already knows. His opponent, Kathy Ellis told us that "Since the start of this pandemic, Jason Smith has done nothing but lie about the state of our country. Just this past week, he tweeted-- one of his few forms of communication with his consitutients-- that 'Trump acted with swift, decisive action' and he's 'thankful for the strong leadership he's shown.' Give me a break. Since the start of this pandemic, we've seen over 100,000 Americans die, and it didn't have to be this way. With better and stronger leadership at the head of our country, we could have prevented many of these deaths. Jason Smith's attempt to negate this is an attempt to trick the voters in his District into thinking that his plan of inaction is working. Well, it isn't working, and we're seeing voters start to question that in in MO-08."

November's Outlook For Democrats Running For Congress Is Excellent

Last year, it was reasonable to look at the Senate election table for 2020 and predict that the Democrats would have a hard time flipping that chamber. It looked like they were most likely to lose one-- Jones in Alabama-- and possibly gain three-- Colorado (Gardner), Arizona (McSally) and Maine (Collins). That would leave them with the Turtle running the Senate again-- with a fragile 51-49 majority. Thanks in great part to Trump's incompetent, dysfunctional and failed handling of the pandemic (both health wise and the economic fallout), the Democrats mood towards the GOP has soured so badly that several other Republicans look like they will have a hard time being reelected, namely Kelly Loeffler (Georgia), David Perdue (Georgia), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Thom Tillis (North Carolina), Dan Sullivan (Alaska) and Steve Daines (Montana)... not to mention the open seat in Kansas and 3 fascinating long shots: Texas (John Cornyn), Kentucky (Turtle himself!) and South Carolina (Lindsey Graham).





The Senate is absolutely in play and I'd say the Democrats currently have the upper hand. Unless the Democrats nominate Jon Ossoff-- in which case they will lose the Perdue contest-- they can win the two Georgia seats, which will mean that for the first time since 1993, Georgians will have elected Democrats for both their Senate seats-- back then, Sam Nunn and, briefly, Wyche Fowler. The Democrat that can beat Perdue is clearly former Columbus mayor Teresa Tomlinson, which would make her the first woman elected to a Georgia Senate seat. (Georgia has never had a woman governor.) The most recent poll in Arizona shows Democrat, Mark Kelly leading appointed Republican incumbent Martha McSally by an astounding 13 points.

The RealClearPolitics polling average shows the DSCC's extremely weak North Carolina candidate, Cal Cunningham, slightly ahead of GOP incumbent Thom Tillis. The last public poll of the Maine Senate race-- by PPP-- shows Susan Collins losing to the DSCC candidate 47-43%, with Collins' approval rating at a miserable 33%. The last public poll for Colorado, by Emerson, shows the DSCC candidate beating Cory Gardner (R) 53-40%.

But the House has always looked good for the Democrats this cycle. Somehow the media was swayed by the NRCC to frame the race as not as "How many more seats will the GOP lose in 2020," but as "Can the GOP regain the majority," an absurd proposition. The foolish prognosticators all went along with that-- and so did the lazy mass media. But it was always the wrong question because the Trump GOP has been on the skids and looking more likely to lose a net of 15 seats than gain a net of 1 seat!

Sure, there are three accidental 2018-won seats the GOP could possibly take back-- SC-01 (Joe Cunningham), NY-22 (Anthony Brindisi), OK-05 (Kendra Horn)-- but they are all useless members who vote with the Republicans anyway and the party is better off without the 3 of them. One senior Democrat on Pelosi's leadership team confided in me that, for example, Brindisi, a Blue Dog chairman, whines about every single thing the Democrats try to do, whimpering that it will cause him to lose his seat. He told me that every Democrat in the House other than his fellow Blue Dogs hopes Brindisi does lose his seat! On the brighter side of this coin, dozens of Republican seats are in genuine jeopardy-- even with miserable DCCC recruiting-- in another anti-red wave. Among Republican seats up for grabs:

• CA-01- LaMalfa
• CA-04- McClintock
• CA-22- Nunes
• CA-25- Garcia
• CA-42- Calvert
• CA-50- open
• FL-15- Spano
• FL-17- Buchanan
• FL-18- Mast
• GA-01- Carter
• GA-07- Woodall
• IA-04- King
• IL-12- Bost
• IL-13- Davis
• IN-05- Brooks
• MI-03- Amash
• MI-06- Upton
• MN-01- Hagedorn
• MN-08- Stauber
• MO-02- Wagner
• MT-AL- Gianforte
• NC-02- Holding
• NC-06- Walker
• NC-08- Hudson
• NC-09- Bishop
• NC-11- open
• NE-02- Bacon
• NJ-02- Van Drew
• NY-01- Zeldin
• NY-02- King
• NY-24- Katko
• NY-27- open
• OH-01- Chabot
• OH-10- Turner
• OH-12- Balderson
• OH-14- Joyce
• PA-01- Fitzpatrick
• PA-10- Perry
• PA-16- Kelly
• TX-02- Crenshaw
• TX-06- Wright
• TX-10- McCaul
• TX-21- Roy
• TX-22- Olson
• TX-23- Hurd
• TX-24- Marchant
• TX-25- Williams
• TX-31- Carter
• VA-05- Riggleman
• WA-03- Herrera Beutler
• WA-05- McMorris Rodgers

Are the Democrats going to take over 50 seats? No. But these are all potential battlegrounds, even with putrid DCCC recruits, primarily because of Trump. There are seats in North Carolina and Texas that look like a sure thing and there are seats in New York and Nebraska that look like a better than even bet. None of that surprises me. But what does is this Nathan Gonzales headline at Roll Call, Ratings update: Democrats more likely to boost majority than lose it. Welcome aboard! Better late than never-- and most of his colleagues aren't there yet. In fact, he isn't really there himself and still offers a wildly Republican-friendly outlook. At least his tepid analysis seems to have grasped that absurd GOP "targets" like Josh Harder(CA), Katie Porter (CA) and Antonio Delgado (NY) may be wishful thinking but are not legitimate battlegrounds for the Republicans. "[T]he House battlefield," he wrote, "consists of 31 districts currently represented by Democrats, 28 districts currently held by Republicans, and the open seat being vacated by Michigan Libertarian Justin Amash, who is not seeking reelection. Republicans need to gain 17 seats in November to retake the House... With that battlefield and President Donald Trump struggling to reach his 2016 marks in key districts, the most likely outcome for the House is close to the status quo. The most likely range is a Republican gain of five seats to a Democratic gain of five seats, or something in between." See? Still silly and months behind the reality.

The battlefield for control of the House is shrinking and divided, and that’s bad news for Republicans. Indeed, Democrats at this point in the cycle look more likely to gain seats than to lose their majority.

In the May 2018 ratings, the fight for the House was being played out on GOP territory. Republicans were defending 68 vulnerable seats compared with just 10 for Democrats, who gained a net of 40 seats later that November.

In May 2016, the House battlefield was more narrow, with Democrats defending seven vulnerable seats compared with 25 vulnerable Republican ones. Democrats netted a modest six seats that fall.

...In 2008, when Democrats gained 20 House seats, which is close to the number Republicans need this year, the House battlefield was already tilting in their favor in May. Democrats were defending 37 vulnerable districts compared with 25 held by Republicans. House Democrats today don’t mind the comparison to 2008 because they’re trying to replicate the 2006-2008 combination with gains in 2018 and 2020.

Republicans’ bigger challenge is that Trump is underperforming his own results from 2016. The most common statistic cited in the GOP’s path to the majority is the 30 House Democrats who represent seats Trump carried four years ago.

A handful of those races, however, are not even rated as competitive because of the lack of a credible GOP challenger, and there’s no guarantee Trump will carry those districts again. If Trump falters by just 3 points and Biden runs ahead of Hillary Clinton by 3 points, the president would carry just 13 of the 30 districts again. Even if Republicans win all of those 13 (which they won’t), that would still leave them short of a majority.

Even within the batch of the most vulnerable Democrats, Republicans are struggling to put those races away. Banking easy races early frees up resources to win the second tier of takeover targets, which are necessary for a majority.

Vulnerable Democrats in better shape for reelection include Lauren Underwood (Illinois’ 14th, Tilt Democratic to Lean Democratic), Andy Kim (New Jersey’s 3rd, Tilt Democratic to Lean Democratic), Anthony Brindisi (New York’s 22nd, Toss-up to Tilt Democratic), and Ben McAdams (Utah’s 4th, Toss-up to Tilt Democratic).

Democratic chances also improved in Nevada’s 3rd District, represented by Democrat Susie Lee, where the race moved from Lean Democratic to Likely Democratic, and Texas’ 21st, where GOP Rep. Chip Roy is facing a well-financed fight from Democrat Wendy Davis, and the contest shifted from Likely Republican to Lean Republican. And the race for Montana’s at-large district was added to the battlefield from Solid Republican to Likely Republican with a strong early showing by Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock in the Senate race at the top of the ballot.