Trump Is Destroying Dozens Of Republican Incumbents' Ability To Win This Cycle

Air Force One by Nancy Ohanian

Incumbents usually win reelection. It's rare when they don't. Last cycle showed what happens to incumbents when they are viewed by their constituents as enablers of a disliked president. And if Trump was disliked by voters in 2018, he is positively loathed by voters this year. Last year Republicans lost 42 seats, including 30 incumbents. The others had retired but 30 stood and fought for their lives and lost, some by huge margins in red districts. (13 GOP-held seats in which the incumbents retired were lost to Democrats-- marked in red.) This is who lost and many of them were to weak, meaningless DCCC candidates.

• AZ-02 Martha McSally (R+2)
• CA-10 Jeff Denham (even)
• CA-21 David Valadao (D+5)
• CA-25 Steve Knight (even)
• CA-39 Ed Royce (even)
• CA-45 Mimi Waters (R+3)
• CA-48 Dana Rohrabacher (R+4)
• CA-49- Darrell Issa (R+1)
• CO-06 Mike Coffman (D+2)
• FL-26 Carlos Curbelo (D+6)
• FL-27- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (D+5)
• GA-06 Karen Handel (R+8)
• IL-06 Peter Roskam (R+2)
• IL-14 Randy Hultgren (R+5)
• IA-01 Rod Blum (D+1)
• IA-03 David Young (D+1)
• KS-03 Kevin Yoder (R+4)
• ME-02 Bruce Poliquin (R+2)
• MI-08 Mike Bishop (R+4)
• MI-11 David Trott (R+4)
• MN-02 Jason Lewis (R+2)
• MN-03 Erik Paulsen (D+1)
• NJ-02 Frank LoBiondo (R+1)
• NJ-03 Tom MacArthur (R+2)
• NJ-07 Leonard Lance (R+3)
• NJ-11 Rodney Frelinghuysen (R+3)
• NM-02 Steve Pearce (R+6)
• NY-11 Dan Donovan (R+3)
• NY-19- John Faso (R+2)
• NY-22 Claudia Tenney (R+6)
• OK-05 Steve Russell (R+10)
• PA-05 Pat Meehan (D+13)
• PA-06 Ryan Costello (D+2)
• PA-07 Charlie Dent (D+1)
• PA-17 Keith Rothfus (R+3)
• SC-01 Mark Sanford (R+10)
• TX-07 John Culberson (R+7)
• TX-32 Pete Sessions (R+5)
• UT-04 Mia Love (R+13)
• VA-02 Scott Taylor (R+3)
• VA-07 Dave Brat (R+6)
• VA-10 Barbara Comstock (D+1)

These are seats were incumbents barely held on-- seats that are seen by both parties as ultra-vulnerable this cycle. As you can see, many of the incumbents have already announced retirements-- and open Republican seats are much easier for Democrats to win

• GA-07 open (0.15%)
• NY-27 Chris Collins (0.38%)
• TX-23 open (0.43)
• MN-01 Jim Hagedorn (0.45%)
• IL-13 Rodney Davis (0.76%)
• KS-02 Steve Watkins (0.85%)
• NE-02 Donald Bacon (1.99%)
• PA-01 Brian Fitzpatrick (2.52%)
• PA-10 Scott Perry (2.64%)
• TX-21 Chip Roy (2.82%)
• TX-31 John Carter (3.00%)
• TX-24 open (3.21%)
• KY-06 Andy Barr (3.21%)
• IA-04 Steve King (3.33%)
• CA-50 Duncan Hunter (3.48)
• MO-02 Ann Wagner (3.95%)
• TX-10 Michael McCaul (3.97%)
• NY-01 Lee Zeldin (4.09)
• OH-12 Troy Balderson (4.16%)
• PA-16 Mike Kelly (4.28%)
• MI-06 Fred Upton (4.55%)
• MT-AL Greg Gianforte (4.63%)
• TX-22 open (4.98%)

Last night, one of the top candidates running for the open seat in GA-07, Marqus Cole, told us that he's "thankful that my neighbors in this district were spared the loss of resources because of the President’s illegal vanity project. However, like lots of folks, I have family members personally affected by his recklessness. My younger brother has bravely carried on my family’s tradition of service; he is the third generation to enter active duty in the U.S. Army. He is currently stationed at an Army installation in an area slated to lose funding. How can any person in good faith say they ‘support the troops’ while the President is raiding the cookie jar? We can’t elect another Republican or lukewarm Democrat to the GA-07 seat to rubber stamp the President's corruption."

In a Bloomberg News column yesterday, The Biggest Unknown About 2020, Jonathan Bernstein asserts that the biggest unknown about 2020 is about "what happens to a political party that defies the way parties have always acted."

Here’s an example. Members of Congress typically work hard to represent their districts. In particular, they try to secure benefits that they can bring home and brag about. Constituents wind up hearing good things about their representatives, and therefore tend to vote for them, all else equal. Thus the advantage of incumbency. In the era of partisan polarization, however, that “all else equal” applies less and less because voters mostly support their party’s candidate, so much so that the incumbency advantage seems to be close to disappearing.

But what happens when incumbents actively support policies that take valuable projects away from their districts? That’s what’s going on with President Donald Trump’s decision to transfer appropriated military funds to pay for his border wall (yes, the one that Mexico was supposed to pay for and that Congress has repeatedly failed to fund).

For now, these transfers appear to be getting plenty of press in the affected states-- including some with potentially vulnerable Republican senators. If this was a normal failure to win funding for projects, I’d say it’s not a big deal; certainly not something that voters would hold against their representatives. But we can’t really say that here. This isn’t a missed opportunity-- it’s a deliberate effort to take something away that had previously been secured. Sure, Trump is the one doing it. But it’s not as if Republicans in Congress can say they did everything they could to stop him.

And this is no isolated incident. Trump’s trade wars, which are actively harming domestic industries, are similar. So is his decision to conduct such an extremely partisan presidency that very few people outside the Republican Party think he’s doing a good job.

Sure, all politicians have to make hard choices that will benefit some constituents and not others. But this president seems far more reckless about it than any since, perhaps, Jimmy Carter. Back then, Democrats in Congress reacted by fighting back against Carter. That didn’t work. Now Republicans are trying the opposite. Perhaps they’ll be successful. But it’s quite possible there are just no good choices available for them right now.

Send Him Back by Nancy Ohanian

Pelosi Or AOC? Most Democrats Prefer AOC

The DC Establishment doesn't, but most regular Americans agree with AOC on this one

Do you remember last month when Hoyer gave the OK for Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) and Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY) to surreptitiously circulate an anonymous memo among House Democrats purporting to have polling info showing that AOC-- and the Squad in general-- are being used, successfully, by the GOP to define the Democratic Party and that the four freshmen congresswomen-- AOC , Ilhan, Rashida and Ayanna-- were toxic for the party? IAs you probably guessed, it was a lie from the Republican wing of the party.

Sure, the NRCC and Trump keep trying to label Democratic Party candidates as:

a- Socialists!!!!
b- best friends with Ilhan (or AOC or Rashida or Ayanna or whoever Trump is busy attacking that week)
c- puppets of Pelosi

Mike Allen helped propagate the bullshit by claiming "that swing voters know and dislike socialism, warning it could cost them the House and the presidency. The poll is making the rounds of some of the most influential Democrats in America. He wrote that so-called "top Democrat"-- presumably as opposed to a bottom Democrat-- that "If all voters hear about is AOC, it could put the [House] majority at risk. [S]he's getting all the news and defining everyone else’s races."

Interestingly it isn't only coming from sleaze balls from the Blue Dogs, New Dems and Problem Solvers. Mark Pocan, the not so progressive co-head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, instructed his staffers to kill all press inquiries asking for comments or appearances for AOC or the other Squad members. That wasn't ideological though, just junior high school jealousy.

The House establishment's secret poll, supposedly of white people with 2 years or less of college who voted for Trump in 2016-- that's some universe (think of that for a minute)-- claims 74% of that universe knows who AOC is and 53% knows who Ilhan is. 22% have a favorable view of AOC and 9% have a favorable view Ilhan. My guess is that 4% have a favorable view of Pelosi but no one shared that info. Why make a fuss over under-educated white people who voted for Trump (i.e., Republicans). How about putting some energy into turning out people who didn't vote for Trump instead?

In any case, a real poll by a reputable firm (YouGov), not a secret, unnamed one-- or pretend one-- just released some very different data. They polled in these 42 battleground congressional districts:

The findings are not what Pelosi, Hoyer, Cuellar, Meeks, et al want circulating:

• On net, among voters in battleground districts, Ocasio-Cortez polls at least as well as other major Democratic figures. Although all political figures had negative net favorability, Ocasio-Cortez is viewed roughly as favorably on net as Joe Biden, and more favorably on net than President Donald Trump and Democratic leadership.


• “Clean-energy companies” and “climate activists” both poll more favorably than “fossil fuel companies.”


• Senator Elizabeth Warren had the highest net favorable ratings among the presidential candidates we tested.


• Each member of “the Squad”-- Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib-- has a higher net favorability than President Donald Trump, Senator Mitch McConnell, and the Republican Party in battleground districts. While Trump’s net favorability is lower, we note that his raw favorability is higher than each member of “the Squad.”

Let me repeat that: each member of the Squad has a net approval rating higher than Trump's in the battleground districts, which should-- but won't-- make the NRCC stop tying Democratic candidates to AOC and the rest of them. Apparently whenever they do that, they make the candidates they're trying to attack more popular, not less popular! Ditto for McConnell and McCarthy. Ilhan, Rashida, AOC and Ayanna have higher net favorabilities than them too.

Even more fabulous-- AOC is more popular than Pelosi in these battleground districts so making AOC a party spokesperson instead of Pelosi would probably increase the Democrats' success rate. AOC is also viewed twice as favorably as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy and more favorably than Chuck Schumer, who progressives pray she will run against and oust in 2022. She is also viewed more favorably than Kamala Harris and more favorably than both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. I contacted about two dozen Democratic candidates in this cycle's top battleground districts and asked them-- on condition of anonymity-- if they'd prefer to have Pelosi or AOC in their district campaigning for them. Only two said Pelosi and one made it clear that she wanted Pelosi for fundraising and absolutely not for a public event. 16 said they would like to do a public event in their district with AOC and some begged me to help them set that up. Among candidates, it is completely clear that AOC is far more admired than Pelosi or anyone on her leadership team. No one said they would accept a campaign visit from DCCC chair Cheri Bustos or House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer-- and most of them said they would prefer to see new Democratic leadership in the House in 2021.

Rachel Ventura is the most recent candidate endorsed by Blue America. She's a Chicagoland progressive challenging entrenched incumbent Bill Foster. This is the note I got from her early this morning: "On the record":

Fundamental change will not come without vicious attacks from entrenched  wealthy interests who currently buy access to lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. I’m challenging a corporate Democrat and member of the New Dem caucus with the belief that a win here drives one more nail into the neoliberals' coffin.

We shouldn't listen to the New Dems fear mongering about losing elections because we ran on a populist/progressive message. At the end of the day, it's the kitchen table issues that people are focused on. The household economics and broken system that dictate the freedom to enjoy their health, family, and hobbies.

My first political race disproved this irrational line of thinking. As an elected official representing a swing district, that is represented by two seats, I dominated both over the Republican and the other Ddemocrat in the race because I ran on a platform of making government work for everyone and not just the wealthy few.

If the majority of Democrats got behind a populist message that the squad is sending, then we could create a powerful force that will unite the nation and dominate elections in swing states and swing districts.

Unfortunately, the New Dems will remain loyal to their wealthy donor base until we can defeat a few more through the primary process.

Milwaukie Mayor Mark Gamba, challenging Blue Dog Kurt Schrader for the OR-05 congressional seat explained why grassroots Democrats are so excited about AOC and the Squad: "Our political system is largely failing the average American. There are a number of reasons for that, but chief among them is that the primary focus of most politicians has become getting re-elected, which typically translates to raising lots of money. So rather than being utterly focussed the betterment of our country and our people, most of the long standing members of Congress are at best distracted by the pursuit of campaign donations-- the bigger the better. Many are none too fussy about the source of those funds and the strings that come along with them. Which is why millions of Americans are so enamoured of AOC and the rest of the squad.  Suddenly, here are these bright, fierce and apparently fearless young women who seem laser focused on positive change and capable of original concepts with no apparent concern for the deep pocketed toes they might be stepping on. I don't think our forefathers who conceived of this nation imagined for one second that members of Congress would spend great portions of their days dialing for dollars, they imagined people doing exactly what the squad is doing-- listening to the people and working tirelessly to solve serious problems. Why anyone is surprised by their popularity is beyond me."

Kim Williams, the progressive challenging Blue Dog Jim Costa in the Central Valley, put it succinctly: "People are looking for moral clarity in politics and The Squad is delivering that. The public is seeing what representatives look like when they center on the people's agenda-- that's receiving a livable wage for hard work, having workers protections and holding corporations accountable to the trauma and damage they have caused their communities. It definitely scares corporate Democrats and the Republican party because it's challenging those who allowed for corporations to influence and write laws that disproportionately affected communities of color and the working class. So yes, we can win battleground districts. We need to break the myth that certain areas are 'too conservative' for progressive Democrats. If we lay the ground work and build trust, we can show them in 2020."

About the most positive thing anyone could muster to say about Pelosi came from Boston-area candidate Brianna Wu and Atlanta area candidate Marqus Cole. Both spoke on the record. Brianna first: "I deeply respect Pelosi and her accomplishments. But reasonable people can have reasonable concerns about this leadership direction for our party. If the strategy of insider shadow brokering really worked, wouldn’t the American people be in a better position? Why does it feel like Democrats are always losing? I’m not sure status quo strategy can lead us through the next 100 years of American history. What people respond to in AOC is authenticity. When she says she believes in Medicare for All, I trust her. I don’t think there’s a caveat, and I don’t think it’s a poker chip to be traded for a better deal. In the age of Trump people underestimate just how valuable honesty is to the electorate."


And we'll end with Marqus, who wrote that he appreciates the question of if I would 'prefer to have Pelosi or AOC in district campaigning?' "First, I reject the premise that one member is MORE or LESS a Democrat than the other. That is a tool of division that I don’t subscribe to. The truth is that AOC is the most high profile member of Congress in a generation. She came of age at the same time I did and shares priorities and values with many of my voters. I would be honored if she hit the campaign trail to share those priorities and values. It is also true that Congresswoman Pelosi has been a champion of progressive causes throughout her career. This includes the largest expansion of the social safety net, the ACA, within two political generations. Further, as a leader in the party she has led us to the majority twice. If Pelosi were to focus attention and resources on the GA-07 race we would nearly certainly take the seat. I think ultimately, when I get to DC I must remember that I will have a relationship with both of these members and work with them. No one member can speak to, and for, the GA-07 like I can because I’m rooted here. But that doesn’t mean they can’t help, and both have their own strengths, weaknesses and experience to bring to the table. These are intelligent, powerful and compassionate women that I would be honored to stand side by side with pursuing justice with."





 

Congressional Prognosticators Are Unaware of The Scope Of The 2020 Anti-Trump Wave That Is Forming

The new Economist/YouGov poll, released yesterday, has more bad news for the GOP. Favorability for congressional Democrats (37%) is 8 points higher than favorability for congressional Republicans (29%). Since only 34% of voters see Trump as honest and trustworthy, he's not going to be able to offer Republicans much help heading into the midterms, except with his hardcore followers-- the 34%. And they need some help. The generic congressional vote now, looks hideous for the GOP. Asked who they would vote for, the Republicans were underwater in every region, as well as nationally:

Northeast

• Democrat- 58%
• Repblican- 30%

Midwest

• Democrat- 45%
• Repblican- 40%

South

• Democrat- 44%
• Repblican- 40%

West

• Democrat- 47%
• Repblican- 38%

Nationally

• Democrat- 47%
• Republican- 38%

Yesterday, writing about the same 2020 congressional cycle, the brain scientists at the Cook Report, as conservative and wrong as always, claimed that "Overall, Democrats are favorites to retain the majority, more likely a reduced than expanded one. If the 23 seats currently in the Toss Up column were to split evenly between the parties, Republicans would gain a net of five seats, less than a third of what they need. The Democrats-- even with a wrecked and even more useless than usual DCCC-- are on track to pick up closer to 50 seats than lose 5. Their predictions have consistently proven worthless for the last decade and a half... so why does anyone care what they say?

Why split them? That's just arbitrarily stupid, It would literally make more sense to say the Democrats will win all of them-- or 90% of them. Look, for example, at the once iconic Republican county in California that swung elections to Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon-- red, red Orange County. It used to be for Republican politics what Bavaria was for the Nazi Party. No more-- in fact there is not one Republican congressman left in any corner of the county-- 100% Democrat. But the NRCC us targeting the 4 Democratic freshmen. Split them 2 to 2? Insane, when the Democrats are likely to retain all 4, even incompetent and worthless Gil Cisneros, who may be far less lucky when Trump isn't on the ballot in 2022. As of yesterday, there were more registered Democrats in Orange County than there are Republicans. By election day, there are likely to be thousands more Democrats than Republicans, since the Democrats are out-registering the GOP by around 100 voters per day.

Rachel Bitecofer is a better analyst and prognosticator than Cook. Her latest is about how increased suburban turnout is what gave the Democrats their big midterm wins in 2018. "The main driver of the suburban revolt away from the GOP," she wrote, "is college education. Although Trumpism has been an effective rallying cry for the GOP base, it has galvanized a previously complacent part of the electorate; white, college educated millennial women as well as all voters under age 40, who represent a far more diverse and liberal voter universe than their older counterparts. As such, any district with high levels of college educated voters was extremely vulnerable for Republicans in 2018, even those that had long been in the hands of the Republican Party such as the six Orange County districts in Southern California which my model was quite clear would uniformly flip to the Democrats. It's important to clarify one point, profoundly misunderstood, 2018 is a story of turnout and turnout was powered by one thing, and one thing only: Donald J. Trump. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Democrats did not flip these Republican districts via the support of moderate Republicans due to their focus on health care. Instead, I’ll show in a forthcoming analysis of the voter file that Democrats’ sharp reversal in their abysmal midterm electoral fortunes was powered by large turnout surges of partisan Democrats and Independents. This turnout surge had profound impacts on the demographic and partisan compositions of the electorates in the competitive districts, leading 40 of them to flip on Election Day."

For better or for worse, American elections are low turnout affairs and it is increasingly clear that in the polarized era, as voters have become more entrenched in their respective parties, elections are increasingly decided by which party (and their Independent leaners) has a turnout-boosting enthusiasm advantage. Analyzed this way, contests are assessed by their turnout surge (or decline) potential. Using this metric, despite Democrats’ impressive 2018 performance, they left a half dozen seats uncontested in the 2018 cycle that may well have flipped if they had been identified as competitive by the Democrat’s campaign apparatus.

The table below identifies these districts, as well as several others Democrats did contest but came up short in for the 2018 cycle. Nine of these districts are in Texas, which increasing looks like it should be Ground 0 of the Democrats’ 2020 efforts. However, actually flipping these districts would require a massive investment in an area Democrats have continually under-invested in: Latino turnout. Democrats’ success in increasing the size of their House majority will largely depend on whether they come to recognize the need to maximize turnout among Democratic-friendly constituencies such as college-educated women, Latinos, African Americans, and Millennials and in their ability to understand that it is fear of Trump, not policy, that will best motivate these voters to the polls, no matter what the voters themselves may think. Given the rampant misdiagnosis of how Democrats came upon their House majority in the 1st place (the turnout surge was about health care, not Trump and they won by wooing Republicans) I am certainly not arguing that Democrats will win these seats, only that demographically, they would be able to if they ran the right strategy. Between NY 24 and 27 Democrats and their allies spent $40 million dollars and came up short on both races. Reinvesting money like that in Texas has potential to yield them far greater seat gains.

I’ll add, the four open seats all but certain to flip as is AZ 6 now that the party has come to realize how competitive it is. I also assume that the party will invest more heavily in NE-2 in 2020, regardless of whether they care for the nominee. That would give Democrats a bare minimum of an additional 6 seats from the cycle.

Here are the 18 most competitive seats currently held by the Republican Party [including the percentage of residents with college eductions]. 

• AZ-06- David Schweikert-- 51.1%
• GA-07- (open) 47.8%
• IN-05- (open)-- 50.9%
• MO-02- Ann Wagner-- 55.4%
• NC-02- George Holding-- 43.8%
• NE-02- Don Bacon-- 46.1%
• NY-01- Lee Zeldin-- 44.4%
• NY-24- John Katco-- 41.9%
• NY-27- Chris Collins-- 42.3%
• TX-02- Dan Crenshaw-- 47.1%
• TX-03- Van Taylor-- 60.5%
• TX-10- Michael McCaul-- 44.3%
• TX-21- Chip Roy-- 51.8%
• TX-22- (open)-- 51.3%
• TX-23- (open)-- 24.1%
• TX-24- (open)-- 51.0%
• TX-25- Roger Williams-- 43.1%
• TX-31- John Carter-- 42.8%

I asked the most likely Democratic candidates in some of these districts why they think they are going to turn their district blue this cycle. The first to get back with me was Mike Siegel, the Texan who nearly defeated Michael McCaul in 2018 and is poised to do just that in 2020. "In a single election cycle, we narrowed the gap in TX-10 from 19% to 4%. Through a strong field campaign, a massive volunteer effort, and enthusiasm up and down the ballot my campaign mobilized over 1,000 Texans to knock doors and get out the vote. And this was only the beginning. McCaul is deeply unpopular, because of his attacks on healthcare, his complicity in family separation and other human rights abuses, and his complete absence from the District. For eight terms, McCaul did nothing to show that he cared; he relied on personal wealth and gerrymandering to maintain his position. Now, we have the foundation for a strong progressive shift, led by youth and labor, social justice organizations and grassroots activists, that will flip TX-10 and propel Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, from local races to Senate and President. McCaul's days in Congress are numbered."

Marqus Cole is the progressive Democrat running for the open seat in the suburbs north of Atlanta that is looking like it's gone from red to purple and will elect a Democrat for the first time in living memory. "Anyone who looks closely at the GA-07 can see the writing on the wall," said Cole this morning. "That is why Woodall retired instead of facing the music. The lukewarm centrist candidate ran and lost in this Atlanta suburb by 500 votes; meanwhile Lucy McBath ran as a gun control activist next door and won and here Stacey Abrams ran as a strong unabashed, unapologetic Democrat and carried the district by 1,700 votes on a progressive platform.  This is one of the most diverse communities in the South and it is only growing as incomes go up, demographics change and the Trump Administration gets more extreme. A progressive, millennial and minority candidate who can speak to criminal justice reform, access to healthcare and small business interests is pitch perfect to carry the seat. That is why the Republican party is doing everything it can to try and buy the seat early with candidates pouring in $50,000; $250,00 and $600,000 of their own dollars early." It's worth investing in seats like GA-07 and TX-10 and helping progressives like Marqus Cole and Mike Siegel replace Republicans in Congress. Please click on the Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right and consider contributing what you can.

Trump Has A Healthcare Plan? Like His Gun Safety Plan?

Kevin Drum and I were being treated at City of Hope for similar cancers at the same time. I'm confident that he-- unlike many members of Congress-- understands healthcare policy and the importance of Medicare for All. About a week ago, Mother Jones ran an essay by Kevin, Trump Health Care Strategy: Pretend to Have a Plan. Referencing a report from the Washington Post, he wrote that "Apparently Donald Trump plans to take his usual sober and considered approach to health care policy during campaign season:

White House advisers, scrambling to create a health-care agenda for President Trump to promote on the campaign trail, are meeting at least daily with the aim of rolling out a measure every two to three weeks until the 2020 election.

...Some, however, are doubtful a flurry of executive orders and new regulations would have an immediate effect on consumers’ pocketbooks. What is clear is that the approach, which includes White House support for a bipartisan Senate bill to cap Medicare drug price increases to the rate of inflation, is putting congressional Republicans in a tough spot: Embrace Trump’s agenda and abandon conservative precepts about interference in the marketplace, or buck the president on one of his top priorities.

...One lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, described being stunned at a recent White House meeting when Domestic Policy Council Director Joe Grogan said the administration would not let Democrats run to the president’s left on lowering the prices of prescription medicines. In another tense meeting, top pharmaceutical executives were told bluntly “it wasn’t in the industry’s best interests” to block the bipartisan Senate bill backed by Trump. If it failed, they were told, they’d see “the president of the United States negotiating with Nancy Pelosi [on allowing the government to negotiate drug prices in Medicare],” said a person familiar with the meeting.

Uh huh. That’s a tough one. Should Republicans blithely abandon their principles and do what Trump wants or-- or what?

Of course, this isn’t a matter of sitting back and letting Trump attack brown or black or yellow people. This is a matter of by god interference with corporate interests, which really does put Republicans in a tough spot. They’re perfectly happy to let Trump tear into America’s oldest racial wounds, but reducing the profits of pharmaceutical companies by a few points? That’s a genuine chin scratcher. What’s a Republican to do?

Yesterday, Wall Street Journal reporters Stephanie Armour and Andrew Restuccia wrote that the White House will roll something out as a healthcare plan next month. Remember when Trump promised to create a healthcare utopia? A plan with heart? "i'm going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of-- much better than they're taken care of now." Don't remember? Watch:



Trump has done nothing... other than try to abolish Obamacare and cut Medicare and Medicaid. Now he wants a cohesive stacks of lies he can use on the campaign trail to contrast to Medicare-For-All. "Elements of the plan," wrote Armour and Restuccia, "could include providing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, the people said, and spurring the sale of insurance across state lines. Other provisions being discussed include giving states more flexibility, expanding health savings accounts, linking price transparency to quality metrics, and more insurance options for consumers, they said. The plan would include a number of new elements that haven't yet been released, one person familiar with the work said. White House officials stressed that the plans haven't been completed, and some close to the president have privately expressed skepticism. One former White House official raised the possibility that the plan may not materialize this fall if Mr. Trump second-guesses the effort. The administration is also still weighing how specific the plan should be, the people familiar with the plan said, and the ideas have yet to get Mr. Trump’s sign off."

Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser to the president who is involved in the discussions, met recently with House Republicans to brief them on the progress of the administration’s efforts, two people present said. She stressed that the administration’s plan would protect pre-existing conditions and she reviewed possible legal outcomes in the lawsuit to strike down the ACA. She is planning to brief Senate Republicans after they return from their August recess.

The push to put out a plan, which has already involved months of behind-the-scenes work, underscores growing concern on Mr. Trump’s team that the president could be vulnerable on health care. A recent Fox News poll of registered voters found Democrats had a 14-point advantage over Republicans on which party would do a better job handling the issue.

The administration is backing a lawsuit from GOP-led states to strike down the ACA, a stance that leaves Mr. Trump open to attacks from Democratic presidential candidates who say he is a threat to coverage.

“We are the Democrats. We are not about trying to take away health care from anyone,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in the second Democratic debate in Detroit this week. “That’s what the Republicans are trying to do.”

The case may not be fully resolved until next year, placing health care at the center of the 2020 presidential campaign. An estimated 20 million people have gained coverage because of the ACA, and more than 100 million people with existing medical conditions could see their coverage lost or become more expensive if the law is struck down.

The White House has already released initiatives or been working on regulations that would accomplish some of the goals that could be in the president’s plan. But his fall proposal, if released, could go further-- for example, calling for state or state and federal high-risk pools, which aim to provide coverage to people who can’t get insurance because of expensive pre-existing health conditions, according to one person familiar with the planning.

“They definitely want to show they’re protecting pre-existing conditions,” said one GOP Hill staffer familiar with the discussions.

Parts of the plan would probably require congressional action, which is unlikely because the House and Senate remain divided.

The plan could call for grants to states to establish high-risk pools or programs that pay a portion of high-cost claims to buffer insurers and help drive down premiums. High-risk pools were used by more than 30 states and covered more than 200,000 people before the ACA, but some people had trouble getting coverage as states capped enrollment amid funding pressures.

The return of high-risk pools has been a longtime Republican goal; House Republicans pushed for the creation of a $15 billion federal high-risk pool in their proposals to replace the ACA. Critics say they cost too much money and have a long history of problems.

Mr. Trump may also lay out new strategies to jump start the sale of insurance across state lines, an idea he included in his 2016 campaign platform. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service in March sought public input on how to eliminate barriers to such sales, which are already permitted, but have had few takers. Mr. Trump has also said he wants to let people on Medicare contribute to health savings accounts.

The proposal could also call for more action to link price information in health care to quality. Actions to provide more alternative forms of insurance that don’t comply with ACA regulations and consumer protections are also being discussed, one person familiar with the planning said.

The tentative release of a more complete plan in September is part of a broader strategy ahead of the 2020 election. The White House is planning to ramp up Mr. Trump’s speeches and actions on health care this fall because polls show it is a top issue for voters. The administration has already unveiled new efforts on a range of health-related issues, from improving kidney health to making it easier to import prescription drugs from other countries.

But skepticism abounds because Mr. Trump has repeatedly promised a health plan without delivering one. During the GOP push to repeal the ACA in 2017, he said he was close to finishing a plan that aimed to provide “insurance for everybody.”

Fault lines have emerged within the White House over how to accomplish aspects of the plan and how specific to be largely because of concerns it could open Mr. Trump up to attacks from Democratic presidential candidates, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

Yet allies of Mr. Trump believe it would give a boost to the president even though Congress is unlikely to take action on any of the ideas that require legislation.

At the White House, regular meetings on broad health-care strategy are being led by Domestic Policy Council Director Joe Grogan, with participation from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services head Seema Verma, Health and Human Services Department officials, and senior aides from the National Economic Council, Council of Economic Advisers and other White House offices, according to people involved in the talks.

Progressives expand healthcare; conservatives constrict it and block it. That's how it's always been and how it still is. If healthcare is important to you, never vote for a Republican and never vote for a Blue Dog or a New Dem. They're the enemy. If you click on the thermometer on the right, you'll find a list of progressive Democrats running for House seats, all of whom are campaigning on Medicare-For-All.

Marqus Cole is the strongest progressive running for the open congressional seat in the suburbs north of Georgia (GA-07) and one of the issues he's campaigning on is Medicare-for-All. This morning he told me that this week "here in Georgia we found out the 'Emperor had no clothes' the whole time when Governor Kemp's 'plan' to not cover all Georgians got shot down by the Trump Administration. Don't believe me? The major paper in town, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, had this to say about Georgia healthcare: 'Kemp’s plan for Georgia is still unknown at this point... [27%] of Georgians ages 19 to 34 are uninsured, one of the worst rates in the nation.' Much like the current administration, here in Georgia the plan for Georgia is still unknown while people go without access to basic affordable healthcare. Enough is enough. I'm heading to DC to fight for my neighbors here in Georgia and all around the country. We. Need. Healthcare. For. Everyone! Republicans like Rob Woodall, and those in his party trying to replace him, are on record for wanting to go back to the crazy world of pre-existing conditions, young adults without health care, and birth control that doesn't come standard. With a Democratic Congress and President we will make our first task ensuring Healthcare-for-all."

Shear across the country, in Oregon, Mark Gamba is thinking much the same way. "Here we are, the richest nation on the planet and we spend more per-capita than any other country in the world on healthcare, and yet out of the 11 top industrialized nations we rank number 11 in health outcomes. Not because our doctors, nurses and hospitals aren't outstanding-- they are-- it's just that millions of Americans can't access that outstanding health care, either because they can't afford health insurance or their deductibles are so high they can't access the care without going bankrupt. Republicans and corporate Democrats say it's 'too hard' or 'too expensive' to provide Universal Healthcare to all Americans and I say: That's B.S.! You are telling me that America isn't smart enough to accomplish what every other civilized nation on earth has managed to pull off? I wholeheartedly disagree. I know we can do it, and I know we can do it better than anyone else has done it because we ARE Americans. We just have to decide that it's more important to provide quality healthcare to all of our people for less money than it is for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to reap massive profits by denying us care and addicting us to opioids."

  

The Biggest Moments Of Today's Judiciary Committee Hearing

Likely Western New York candidate for Congress, Nate McMurray: "The GOP really has become the party of conspiracies-- while ignoring what’s right before them. It’s like the house is on fire, and they want you to look at mold in the basement. But we have it, word for word... THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT EXONERATED"

One of the most compelling moments this morning was made by Jamie Raskin of Maryland (below). After he was finished I asked him what the Committee was trying to accomplish. He told me that he thinks "we demonstrated that there is overwhelming evidence in the Report that  President Trump repeatedly obstructed justice. I was one of the Members who described in fine-grained detail a specific episode of obstruction and mine was Trump’s outrageous witness tampering with Michael Cohen. I only had three and a half minutes but I think the point was made. Despite Attorney General Barr’s best efforts, the Administration’s fog of propaganda is lifting."

Mike Siegel, a candidate for Congress-- previously an attorney for the city of Austin-- watched the hearings today and soon after Jerry Nadler gaveled the session to a close he told me that "Robert Mueller has done his part to document criminal activity by Donald Trump. Although he is clearly weary of these proceedings, today he confirmed the core findings of his report. It’s in the hands of Congress. If I were there, I’d support starting impeachment proceedings. But either way, this is the fork in the road. Go big or go home."

Ted Lieu (D-CA):




This is what Ted told me after he was finished questioning Mueller: "I simply walked Special Counsel Mueller through the three elements of the crime of Obstruction of Justice. Mueller agreed that Donald Trump had met the first two elements and then I read the third element verbatim from his report, which stated there was 'substantial evidence' of corrupt intent. Without the Department of Justice OLC Opinion preventing the indictment of a sitting President, Donald Trump would have been indicted. That's why over 1,000 former federal prosecutors signed a letter stating that any other person would have been indicted if they had done what the President did. In America, no one should be above the law. It is clear that right now we have a person in the Oval Office who has committed multiple felonies."

Jerry Nadler (D-NY):




Ken Buck (R-CO)




Jamie Raskin (D-MD)




Marqus Cole is a prominent attorney in Georgia running for Congress in an open suburban Atlanta seat. He watch the Buck questioning with a great deal of interest and he shared his impressions with me. "With one word," he said-- referring to Mueller's 'yes' response-- "in one moment, the man that was tasked with investigating the sitting President provided Pelosi, House Democrats and the country with everything we need to know. To review: without any question, the President of the United States is an unindicted co-conspirator to a federal crime in which a fellow co-conspirator was sentenced to three years in federal prison. Now, separate from that crime we have Mueller saying in one word that the President could be charged with a second a separate criminal offense. I want to be crystal clear; an impeachment inquiry needs to be opened right away. The House is the sole body in the entire country that has that power, authority and obligation to do so. House members should put aside party, politics and questions of whether the Senate will remove from office. It is time to impeach the unindicted con-conspirator to a federal crime that currently occupies the White House."

Val Demings (D-FL)




Hank Johnson (D-GA)




Kina Collins is another congressional candidate (Chicago) who watched the Mueller testimony carefully. "Robert Mueller's testimony today," she said, "confirmed what many of us have believed from the beginning-- that the president and his administration were involved in obstruction of justice and were aware of Russian interference with the 2016 election. I want it to be clear-- I stand with representatives like Maxine Waters who have been vocal from day one with calls to 'Impeach this man.' Because Democratic leaders have slow walked this issue, we have quickly descended into one of the darkest and most corrupt periods in our country's history. There are consequences for the choices we make in how we proceed next. I know what side of history I am standing on, and if I was in Congress now, I would be voting for impeachment hearings to begin. We can't keep playing these games when the morality and integrity of our entire democracy are at stake."




Adam Schiff did an excellent job later at the House Intelligence Committee. His introduction (above) was powerful and he was able to get Mueller to be very clear (below) that his investigation was neither a "witch hunt" nor "a hoax," that Russia helped Trump win the election and that the Trump campaign knew it and coordinated with the Russians and that Trump was trying to make a lot of money in his dealings with Putin and the Russians. Mueller also warned the Intelligence Committee several times that the Russians are currently trying to interfere with the 2020 elections.




New Mexico Secretary of State-- and Senate candidate-- Maggie Toulouse Oliver issued a statement after the Judiciary Committee adjourned. "The Mueller Report and the Special Counsel’s testimony on Capitol Hill today," she wrote, "provide more than enough evidence to warrant impeachment proceedings. For the good of our democracy, I am asking Congressman Luján to join my call for impeachment so that we can hold this president accountable and prevent any further abuses of power by him... Anyone who has read the Mueller Report can see there is evidence that the president, in an effort to protect himself, fired FBI Director James Comey, forced Attorney General Jeff Sessions to step down, and even attempted to have the Special Prosecutor fired. The president is not above the law and it is Congress’ job to hold him accountable. We can’t wait any longer. We must take action now to protect our democratic process by impeaching President Donald Trump. What’s more, we can hold this president accountable and still pass important legislation like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All."

On Sleeping With The Enemy

One of the things I always liked about Ted Lieu and Pramila Jayapal was that while they were state senators, he in California and she in Washington, they became experts at working across the aisle to get real things accomplished. And they did it without ever abandoning their progressive and Democratic values. Marqus Cole is running for an open seat in the suburbs northwest of Atlanta. After the “compromise” that Pelosi and Hoyer gave to McConnell for nothing, he wrote me a note that emphasized that “it’s important to remember context and what actually happened here— Senate Democrats sold out our party’s values for a ‘bipartisan’ deal. House Democrats DID vote for and pass a version of the humanitarian aid bill that dealt with the problems of the immigration camps and put parameters on the administration. Once that bill made it to the Senate, Mitch, the grim reaper, never brought it up for vote. Senate Democrats had a choice. Fight for our values and a bill that passed the house or jam a ‘compromise’ bill down the throats of the House Democrats at the last minute. The only thing compromised about that bill was it’s values. Senate Dems should have fought for an up or down vote on the house’s bill; including slowing down the Senate if necessary. Or tried to go to conference in the alternative. I would have voted for the first House bill. I too would have protested what happened, that wasn’t democracy.”

What sickens me is seeing conservative shills within the Democratic Party— Josh Gottheimer comes right to mind as an example— who think bipartisanship means giving up and embracing the Republican position. That’s what the Problem Solver’s Caucus and the Blue Dogs are all about. It’s also what Status Quo Joe is all about.

Right after the debate, SiriusXM radio interviewed Bernie who responded to a question about working across the aisle by explaining how he and Biden differ on that. "Well, look, all that I can tell you is, my views are a little bit different. I do work with Republicans when I can. For example, I'm very proud of the fact that for the first time in 45 years, we used the War Powers Act to get a majority vote in the Senate to end the horrible war in Yemen led by Saudi Arabia. So, you work with Republicans when you can. But I think everybody understands that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans today have evolved into an extreme right wing party. They are intimidated by Donald Trump. They are controlled by big money, and the only way we beat them is by creating an unprecedented grassroots movement of young people and working people and people who believe in justice."

Biden, clueless as ever, had boasted how he had engineered a disastrous “compromise” with McConnell that extended the Bush tax cuts forever, while slightly, and very temporarily, raising the income tax rate for wealthy Americans. Biden foolishly babbled that “we needed to be able to keep the government from shutting down and going bankrupt; I got Mitch McConnell to raise taxes $600 billion by raising the top rate.”

Unfortunately for Biden, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, a solidly conservative Democrat, was very aware of how those negotiations went. “The deal,” he said, “that he talked about with Mitch McConnell was a complete victory for the Tea Party. That was a great deal for Mitch McConnell. It was a terrible deal for Americans.”

I was waiting for Biden to start bragging how he had negotiated a deal that included cutting Social Security and Medicare, but I assume his staff drilled it into his head to not mention that during the primaries. In fact, as far back as 1995, Biden has been advocating Social Security and Medicare cuts. This is the only thing you can be sure he will do if he is— God forbid— elected president. Watch the flaming asshole on the senate floor. This is absolutely classic Biden— his essence as a piece of crap in suit and tie:




Biden— always already up on a high horse that he never has to get up on—insisted that cutting programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits… is the only way to ensure their continued existence— an old conservative and Republican Party ruse that they have been using for a century. Obama appointed Biden to lead the negotiations for the [thankfully failed] 2011 Grand Bargain. Biden eagerly offered to cut Social Security benefits as part of the deal. And it was just a bit over a year ago that he cluelessly shouted how “Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What’s the first thing he decided we needed to go after? Social Security and Medicare.” And that’s exactly what Biden will go after if he ever gets the chance. Ironic when you consider the only firm support he has is from voters over 65 who are absolutely petrified of any change, especially to Medicare and Social Security.

The Mueller Report Isn't Required Reading For Republican Members Of Congress

Justin Amash (R-MI) caused quote a stir last month when he began calling for impeachment, mentioning in the process that most of his Republican colleagues in the House hadn't read the Mueller Report but that he had. I haven't heard much push-back from the GOP but several sources-- both Democrat and Republican-- have confirmed what Amash tweeted, namely that although Democrats have tended to read the report in a serious way. most Republicans haven't bothered or, if they had, just glossed over it in a few minutes. One senior Senate Democrat told me today that Republicans largely gave it to staffers and asked them to "see if there's anything important in it."

Georgia Republican Rob Woodall, who was in one of the closest reelection bids on 2018-- he retained his seat suburban seat northwest of Atlanta by 419 votes: 140,430 to 140,011-- and almost immediately announced he would be retiring at the end of this session. But he's still getting his salary ($174,000/year plus expenses, perks and staff) and, at least in theory, still doing his job. He went on CNN Sunday and bragged how he hasn't bothered to read the Mueller report. First watch him arguing nonsensically with David Cicilline on March 14 about transparency in regard to the investigation:

Speaking with MSNBC host Kasie Hunt Sunday night, the congressman offered several defenses for not reading Mueller's report on the Russia investigation. He first claimed that his overwhelming "trust" in Mueller's integrity meant he did not feel the need to review anything unless the Special Counsel had specifically requested such a move.

As Hunt appeared a bit shocked by Woodall's proud dismissal of reading any word in the report, the Republican doubled down and offered the additional defense that he also had no interest in the "salacious" accusations against former President Bill Clinton.

"Have you read the Mueller report?" Hunt asked Woodall Sunday evening.

"I have not," he replied. "I said when we started this conversation that I trusted Mr. Mueller and he took a lot of slings and arrows throughout this process but every U.S. attorney I knew said this is a man of great integrity and he's going to lead this investigation."

"So why not read the report?" Hunt pressed.

"Well I have a concern when you put the entire power of the United States Justice Department behind anything. You can achieve an agenda, you can drive a message."

"So you think the Mueller report was just driving an agenda? Hunt asked again, appearing visibly frustrated with Woodall's seemingly unconcerned replies. "There's nothing there that's, like, worth figuring out?"

But Woodall dismissed Mueller's move to refer 14 cases to other offices, saying the special counsel had every opportunity and benefit handed to his team in order to complete the report.

"Obstruction is not a political issue, it is a criminal issue," Woodall said, arguing that Congress has no obligation to review his report despite many believing Mueller set a road map for impeachment proceedings. The former special counsel said a sitting U.S. president could not be indicted but that he would have said if President Donald Trump was exonerated-- which he did not.

Woodall conceded Congress could review the investigation if they so choose, but he recalled not wanting to read into or pay attention to the salacious Kenneth Starr report and investigations into Clinton in the 1990s.

"I was a staffer on Capitol Hill in 1998 when Republicans went down this road and they thought it was going to be a wonderful thing to be able to impeach a sitting president and as you know Republicans lost seats in that 1998 election," he said. "The constituents I represent don't want to see criminal activity at any place, but they also don't want to see folks grinding their political axes when there are important economic issues, family issues, education issues that need to be handled."

This morning House Judiciary Committee superstar Ted Lieu (D-CA) reminded DWT readers that "In their wisdom, the Founders entrusted Congress with the essential role of providing oversight of the Executive Branch. Burying one's head in the sand and refusing to even consider the facts of an investigation into some of the most powerful officials in our government is an abdication of that solemn responsibility. It is also incredibly dishonest to make claims about a report without even reading it. It is willful ignorance from some of my Republican colleagues."

 It's likely that the next congressmember from GA-07 after Woodall steps down, will be progressive Democrat Marqus Cole. Cole isn't running against him. He'll be running against whichever imitation of him the GOP decides to run-- likely anti-Choice fanatic and right-wing all around crazy-person Renee Unterman. But when we asked Marqus about his current Rep, he told us that "Woodall got caught saying the quiet part out loud. Everyone back home in Gwinnett and Forsyth counties knows he doesn’t do the 'work' of being a congressman. Constituents can’t reach him, he never passes legislation to help the district and now we know he can’t even be bothered to read the most important report he government has produced in the past two years. Don’t believe me? Check out his official website. He doesn’t even bother to put an address for the district office. It’s like he doesn’t even want people back home to know where he is. Good riddance in retirement. At least then we won’t be spending our hard earned tax dollars paying him to NOT work."


 

Renee Unterman, Architect Of Georgia's Abortion Ban Is Now Running For Congress

Renee Unterman and Marqus Cole (GA-07)

The congressional race in GA-07-- the suburbs northwest of Atlanta-- was very tight in 2018. Stacey Abrams carried the district in her gubernatorial race but Carolyn Bourdeaux had a breathtakingly close defeat at the hands of Republican incumbent Rob Woodall-- 140,430 (50.1%) to 140,011 (49.9%). The district is primarily blue-trending (D+11) Gwinnett County and solidly red (R+36) Forsyth County. Bourdeaux didn't quite excite the base strongly enough to turn out the base she would have needed in Gwinnett to overcome Woodall's mammoth lead in Forsyth.

This cycle the district promises to be one of the most contested in the country. Although the PVI is a prohibitive R+9, Trump's share of the vote, compared to how well McCain and Romney had done, dropped precipitously. He beat Hillary but only 51.1% to 44.8%. Woodall announced that he will retire at the end of the current term. Bourdeaux is running again, as are 4 other Democrats, Marqus Cole (endorsed by Blue America, John Eaves, Nabilah Islamand Brenda Lopez Romero. There are also 5 hopefuls lined up on the Republican side: Ben Bullock, Lynne Homrich, Rich McCormick, Joe Profit and a brand new entry, state Senator Renee Unterman.

Unterman, notorious for her part in passing the six-week Georgia abortion ban, announced her candidacy late last week. Although it's no secret in Georgia that everything Untermann has done over the past few years in the state legislature has been with an eye towards eventually running for this seat, she claimed in her announcement that "Anyone who knows me will tell you that the Lord has instilled within me a beautiful ball of energy loaded with courage to do the right thing-- not necessarily the politically correct and expedient or self-serving thing to do, but the right thing." One could also look at it as Untermann being determined to export her destructive, extremist views out of Georgia and into the rest of the country. She's a dedicated far right warrior and a danger to every part of our country, eager to dismantle Medicare and drag the country back into the 1950s.

Marqus Cole, the most viable of the Democrats running for the nomination explained that "Here in Georgia, you’re likely to hear on a Sunday morning, 'A bad tree can’t produce good fruit.' The fruit of Senator Unterman’s legislative career speaks for itself. While I was fighting to provide access to affordable health care to members of our community that are seniors, disabled and fallen on hard times; she was against expansion of Medicaid-- leaving our hard earned tax dollars on the table. While I was fighting to put criminals behind bars as a prosecutor; she was spear-heading legislation to prevent the testing of rape kits. Preventing victims of crimes from getting the Justice they desperately deserve. While my wife Amanda and I have tried to instill in our daughters the value of making personal decisions based on proper consideration of facts, consequences and personal faith, the Senator has decided that the politicians should be in the room standing between a doctor and a woman, having the final say on the right to access and choose safe medical procedures. I don’t have much to say about the Senator because the fruit of her career speaks volume and she will be known by her fruit."

Marqus has been saying all along that the 7th district has a decision to make an now Renee Unterman's entrance gives the voters a stark choice: "Do we continue to go down a path that leads to more strife, dissension, selfish ambition and divisiveness? Or do we take another path that lifts those in need up, creates opportunity and ensures justice? As you might hear in the Georgia on any given Sunday, 'What we do for the least of these our brothers and sisters, you do for me.' I’ll continue to be known by my fruit, providing for the least of my brothers and sisters. The Senator can stand by her fruit, and we will let the people decide."

Please consider contributing to Marqus' campaign by clicking on the Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right. Keeping Renee Unterman and her reactionary agenda out of Congress is an all-American job, not just a Georgian job. The rotten fruits of her career need to be expunged and reversed. Marqus Cole is just the person for the job.