Will Pennsylvania Congressional Districts Really Be Re-Drawn Before The Midterms?

Pennsylvania is one of the most absurdly gerrymandered states in the country. Let's call it a 50/50 state. The 5 most recent presidential elections:

• 2000- Gore 50.6%, 48.6%
• 2004- Kerry 51.0%, Bush 48.5%
• 2008- Obama 54.7%, McCain 44.3%
• 2012- Obama 52.0%, Romney 46.8%
• 2016- Trump 48.6%, Hillary 47.9%

The 5 most recent presidential elections:

• 1998- Tom Ridge (R) 57.42%, Ivan Itkin 31.3%
• 2002- Ed Rendell (D) 53.41%, Mark Fisher 44.37%
• 2006- Ed Rendell (D) 60.36%, Lynn Swann 39.64%
• 2010- Tom Corbett (R) 54.49%, Dan Onorato 45.51%
• 2014- Tom Wolf (D) 54.93% Tom Corbett 45.07%

Pretty evenly split, right? OK, a small advantage statewide for Democrats. But the state has been so gerrymandered that the Republicans control both Houses of the state legislature and the congressional delegation-- by gigantic margins. Right now, the state House has 121 Republicans and 82 Democrats and the state Senate has 34 Republicans and 16 Democrats. They drew the congressional districts so... there are 13 Republicans and just 5 Democrats, instead of 9 and 9. Now that is really egregious and blatant gerrymandering!

But don't just take my word for it. The state Supreme Court thinks so too. And they want to do something about it. Now. Yeah, right now-- in time for the 2018 midterms! and they're expediting a lawsuit alleging that Pennsylvania's map of Congressional districts has been gerrymandered to a point where it is violating voters' constitutional rights. In a split 4-3 decision last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled a lower court's stay on the case, and put it at or near the top of the Commonwealth Court's docket with a decision deadline of Dec. 31.

Plaintiffs in the case celebrated the chance to get their partisan gerrymandering challenge heard and decided in time to potentially redraw the maps for the 2018 elections for Pennsylvania's 18 Congressional seats.

Legislative leaders said they would defend the existing maps, which they noted have been in play here since 2012.

...Initially filed in June, the case brought by the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and 18 voters from across the state argues that the Congressional district lines were drawn with such an emphasis on finding advantages for Republican candidates in 2011 that Democratic voters have literally been punished for their voting patterns.

Plaintiffs say the result has made a mockery of the fair elections process, and they hope to use a battery of statistical measures to prove it.

By one such measure, called the "efficiency gap," Pennsylvania ranked with North Carolina as one of the two most gerrymandered states in the nation.

The efficiency gap basically tries to measure competitiveness in districts by comparing single district election margins throughout the state, resulting in a metric designed to show which party is getting the biggest bang for its votes.

Still, the only real black-and-white test in Pennsylvania for redrawing Congressional lines is equal population. So the plaintiffs here have alleged violations of equal protection and freedom of association clauses in the constitution.

Thursday's Supreme Court decision saw four of the court's five justices elected as Democrats-- Christine Donahue, Kevin Dougherty, Deborah Todd, David Wecht-- insist on a trial.

Donahue, Dougherty and Wecht only came onto the court last year, and this is their first bite at the redistricting apple.

The majority held the case "involves issues of immediate public importance," and said it will retain continuing supervision of the case, which suggests that any appeal of a Commonwealth Court decision would be expedited.

Chief Justice Thomas Saylor and justices Max Baer and Sally Mundy dissented.

The case before the Commonwealth Court is expected to result in a civil trial with, at minimum, several expert witnesses called by both sides. The court's decision could range from upholding the existing map, to calling for an immediate redraw.

Time has always been of the essence for the plaintiffs, because they hope to effect a change in the state's maps in time for the 2018 election cycle, which actually starts this winter with circulation of nominating petitions for party primaries.

The court's action immediately injected a layer of uncertainty into the political jockeying taking place across Pennsylvania now, as candidates gearing up for Congressional races have to wonder if they will be in entirely different districts by February.

A case can be argued that every district in the state should be scrapped and redrawn from scratch by a non-partisan body. The most notoriously gerrymandered districts are in the Philly suburbs, PA-06 (Ryan Costello), PA-07 (Pat Meehan) and PA-16 (Lloyd Smucker) but it's going to be a mess untangling the mess that the district boundaries across the state are.

Earlier today, Matt Cartwright a congressman from a district (PA-17) that twists and turns from Carbondale to Scranton and Wilkes-Barre and then south to Pocono Summit, the Delaware Water Gap and Nazareth and as far south as Easton in the east and Freemansburg in the west, told us that "Pennsylvania’s Congressional map is an abomination, a perfect example of politicians selecting their voters, instead of vice versa. I think we are fortunate to have a majority on the state Supreme Court willing to dive into this question and fix our preternaturally bollocksed up Congressional boundaries. It is hard to imagine that any tribunal could conclude that this map is not violative of any reasonable standard of electoral fairness. The real question is the one you have asked at the beginning:  whether the Supreme Court has the will to race time and put a new map in place for 2018. My prediction is that the Olympic-caliber foot-dragging Republicans in Harrisburg will test the high court’s resolve-- to do the right thing-- to the utmost.

Mary Ellen Balchunis, is a political science professor who has run twice before-- and in the most gerrymandered district in the country: PA-07. She told us that "America Votes, a national nonpartisan organization has said: 'PA is the worst gerrymandered state in the nation and PA-07 is the worst of the worst.' Penssylvania has two gerrymandering cases this month. The Pennsylvania state gerrymandering case begins in State court next week with the Speaker of the House Mike Turzai expected to testify. As the former congressional candidate in Congressional District PA-07, often called the 'poster child for gerrymandering," I have been working with Concerned Citizens for Democracy to end gerrymandering and the Agre v. Wolf case. Our case began in federal court on Monday with a panel of three judges,and is also fast tracked for a decision before the 2018 midterm election. Gov. Wolf's lawyer has said that if this challenge is successful and a redrawing is ordered, he would work 'to accommodate that process, including adjusting primary dates and schedules.' This case is relying on the Election Clause of the U.S. Constitution that gives the states the power to run elections, not to allow partisanship in their decisions and gerrymandering. The case is also asking for Traditional Neutral Districts that are equal in population, contiguous, compact, and respect boundaries by not dividing counties, municipalities, townships, and boroughs unless absolutely necessary to create a congressional district."

And this year state Senator Daylin Leach is the leading candidate for that same PA-07 district. "Historically," he told us, "Pennsylvania has been among the most aggressively gerrymandered states in the nation. Our legislature has not been a leader on most national issues, but they have been determined, passionate and creative when it comes to guaranteeing that the voters of our state are completely irrelevant on election day. I am ecstatic that the courts may finally be putting a stop to the theft of votes that our redistricting process is."

Hey, Hey! Ho, Ho! Ben Ray Lujan's Got To Go!

I've been mad at the DCCC since Pelosi named Rahm Emanuel chairman in 2005. It's barely over a decade and other people are starting to catch on as well. The latest shit from this assholes: Pelosi and Ben Gay Lujan now admit the DCCC recruits and funds Blue Dogs and anti-Choice freaks and passes them off on unsuspecting Democratic voters as normal Democrats, Monday. Becca Andrews, reporting for Mother Jones used the DCCC p.r. shop's deceitfully-crafted messaging: "The Democrats will not withhold financial support from candidates who oppose abortion, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) chair Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM)." Oh... "not withhold?" As if they ever did! Conservatives always get the biggest share of DCCC money.

Democratic party leaders, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have also said the Democratic party should not draw a hard line when it comes to abortion. In June, DNC chair Tom Perez met with Democrats for Life of America who demanded that abortion not be a “litmus test” of the party. The 2016 Democratic platform stated that the party believed “unequivocally” that “every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion.”

At a time when the Democratic party is searching for a coherent identity and program after its resounding defeat in 2016, the debate over whether the party openly supports abortion rights will likely continue to heat up as the 2018 races loom.

“Throwing weight behind anti-choice candidates is bad politics that will lead to worse policy,” Mitchell Stille, who oversees campaigns for NARAL Pro-Choice America, told The Hill. “The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.”

I asked a couple dozen incumbents and some 2018 candidates what they think of the new controversy Ben Ray has blindly and stupidly stumbled into. I mean can you imagine how fast Ryan would fire NRCC chairman Steve Stivers if he announced they are going to start recruiting and funding progressive pro-Choice candidates? The first coherent response I got was Paul Perry, a progressive Democrat running for the PA-07 seat in the Philly suburbs currently held by Pat Meehan (R):

Yesterday, the DCCC stated publicly that it would compromise women’s reproductive freedom in a misguided attempt to win elections. This is dangerous nonsense. A woman’s right to bodily autonomy is not a bargaining chip; it is a fundamental part of what should be every Democrat’s commitment to economic justice and healthcare for all.

Therefore, in order to transform words into actionable solidarity, I am using my resources to support the Women’s Medical Fund, an organization that provides financial assistance to economically vulnerable women seeking reproductive care in Philadelphia, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware, and Bucks counties-- and I am encouraging my supporters to do the same. If elected to Congress, I'll ensure that programs like this have the necessary funding and support to provide full access to quality care for all women.

Because access to quality, affordable care for women should not depend on their financial circumstances nor the whims of party leaders. Period.

#TrustWomen #WeWon’tGoBack

Mary Ellen Balchunis was the Democratic candidate for PA-07 last cycle and the DCCC sabotaged her race. Sh'e thinking about running again next year. This morning she told me that "I understand supporting candidates crossing the finish line in the primary. If I had the support of the DCCC after my huge primary victory, I believe that I could have gone much further. However, I disagree with supporting candidates who win the primary and do not support the Democratic platform. As a Political Scientist, I believe if the DCCC goes through with this, you will see numerous women and Progressive men supporting Independent candidates. The DCCC may be giving several victories to Independents; and if the Independents don't win, the DCCC will be giving the election to the Republicans. In either case, the Republicans will maintain their majority. Haven't we learned anything from the 2016 election? The people want candidates who help them with jobs, wages, healthcare and education. It is why Sen.Sanders had such 'huge' support!"

The next post to come in was-- surprise, surprise-- from a woman candidate, Katie Hill, running against GOP crackpot and Trump rubber-stamp Steve Knight in CA-25, an evenly split district leaning blue.

I have spent my whole life in one of those long-held Republican districts that Democrats have to flip next year in order to get back a majority in the House. A Republican has been in the seat for 42 out of the last 50 years. The instinct among Democrats at the national level that we need to be talking to people in those districts differently to be able to win them over is absolutely correct. But that does not mean we should compromise or go backwards on some of our most fundamental values, including women's rights.

Many members of my community have strong religious ties that affect their views on abortion. However, the vast majority of them-- including members of my immediate family-- acknowledge that, while they may not agree with a woman's choice to have an abortion, it is not their place or the government's place to get involved in one of the hardest decisions a woman will ever make in her life. They also almost universally agree, in my experience, that the best way to prevent abortions (and/or the devastating cycle of kids entering the foster care system) is by preventing unplanned pregnancies. So education and access to birth control are absolutely key in that. There is national polling and research that shows that 80% of people support a woman's right to choose, if not morally, then at least from the perspective that it's not a decision that the government can be making for her. We need to be appealing to that overwhelming majority of people-- not the 20% or less who want to strip away the rights we've worked so hard to protect.

A woman's right to choose is something that our party, and progressives in general, have been fighting to earn and to protect for generations. We cannot give that up because of a mistaken belief that this is somehow the way we will win over conservative voters, and more conservative-leaning districts. As a woman, and someone who fundamentally understands the culture and the dynamics of purple districts, I can say with utter confidence that this is the wrong tactic.

The best Democrat running in IL-13, David Gill, is a stalwart, no-nonsense progressive. I knew the DCCC announcement would sound unpleasantly familiar to him. Last night a good feminist Democrat was complaining on twitter that "liberal men" were willing to throw women under the bus and back Lujan on this. Well, not any of the liberal men I know! Dr. Gill sure had a different perspective than that too! "I would have no way of knowing what the DCCC is doing all around the country," he told us, "but I am intimately aware of their actions here in IL-13. I lost this seat in 2012 by three-tenths of ONE point (with the handicap that year of having a liberal independent on the ballot who was expressing all the same views as myself), after defeating the moderate DCCC-backed candidate in the primary (despite being outspent 5 to 1). Subsequent Democrats have lost the seat by 50 to 60 times as much as I lost it by, and Senator Durbin lost in this district by 20 times as much as I lost it by. But in spite of the fact that I have so vastly outperformed other Democratic candidates, I am unable to interest the DCCC in getting behind my 2018 campaign. I suspect that they do not like the fact that some of the main planks in my platform are driven by my 25 year membership in Physicians for a National Health Program (a leading single-payer advocacy group) and my 20 year membership in Physicians for Reproductive Choice. I also speak frequently and passionately about the need for true campaign-finance reform, and the need to end the corporate ownership of our politics and government. These are the issues which have resulted in my relative success here in the district, and yet these same issues seem to keep the DCCC from embracing my campaign. There will not be a liberal independent protecting the Republican who squeaked by me in 2012 this time around (Illinois' bizarre ballot access laws only make that a realistic possibility in years that end in a '2'), so I intend to make up that 0.3% next year and get to Congress, whether the DCCC likes it or not. Of course, first I will have to defeat another moderate DCCC-backed candidate in the Democratic primary next March, a candidate who has not expressed any public support for single-payer or tuition-free public universities or a $15 per hour minimum wage."

Doug Applegate, a former Marine Corp colonel and not someone who gets pushed around by political hacks told us that "the DCCC sets it's own policies and I set the policies for my campaign. Supporting women's hard-won right to choice is a core value of mine and-- a value shared by the majority of San Diego and Orange County voters-- and Beltway strategists aren't the folks I'm looking to for advise on the subject. Women who live in CA-49 are." Doug is likely to replace anti-Choice fanatic Darrell Issa in Congress. Up the road a bit Wendy Reed is running for a deep red seat held by Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. She's another candidate unenthusiastic about the DCCC's latest move. "Ben Ray Lujan's willingness to toss off a Constitutionally protected right of women for political expediency exemplifies the rotting of DCCC strategy," she told us. "Lujan seems to have passed his expiration date, and I stand with Tom Perez and Howard Dean on this. Only principles, platform integrity, and informed conversation will win elections in 2018."

Tom Guild is a progressive Democrat in exactly the kind of "red state," Oklahoma, where the DCCC wants to run anti-Choice Blue Dogs. Of course, they're wrong... and are unlikely to back Tom. He told us that "The progressive coalition is made up of many disparate interests. Environmentalists are often primarily concerned with climate change and the future of our planet. Progressive populists may be most concerned with raising the minimum wage, Wall Street Reform, and the reduction of college student loan debt. Women’s health issues are at the forefront of the concerns of many women and men in the progressive movement. Seniors may emphasize increasing Social Security benefits and protecting Medicare from being reduced to worthless vouchers, leaving older Americans without meaningful affordable health care. There is an abundance of other groups constituting the progressive movement and each has issues crucial to them. To undercut women’s health is offensive and is no more acceptable than the undermining of other values important to diverse elements of our movement. We need candidates who run the gamut and mutually support our progressive allies on issues essential to them. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently said, injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. We must support our coalition partner’s progressive causes, along with our own. Anti-Choice=Anti-Progressive. Together we win, and as Abe Lincoln, also eloquently, opined, a house divided against itself cannot stand."

Harley Rouda is one of the 40 or so Democrats running for GOP-held seats in Orange County. He wants to replace Dana Rohrabacher, an anti-Choice nut. "A woman's right to choose is non-negotiable. We can compromise on many things, but not on a woman's right to autonomy over her own body. I’m in complete agreement with 70% of Americans who, regardless of their personal feelings on abortion, recognize it is a woman’s fundamental right to control her reproductive decisions and that government has no place in deciding for her. I’m disappointed that the Democratic Party won’t stand up without hesitation and in unanimity on this very important issue."

Another Orange County candidate, Andy Thorburn-- who is eager to replace Ed Royce-- jumped into the race yesterday. He told me that "I'm 100% pro-choice, and I believe that the government should not tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. I do not believe that the national party should actively recruit anti-choice candidates."

I asked a whole slew of Democrats in Congress. A few cursed out Pelosi and Lujan or told me off the record how angry they are and how divisive this is for the party-- but no one was willing to speak on the record except Bay Area progressive freshman Ro Khanna, who said simply and right to the point, "I believe being pro-choice is about gender equality and a core value. The DCCC should not support anti-choice candidates." BOOM!

Dotty Nygard is the progressive candidate taking on Jeff Denham in northern California. Again, clear and right to the point: "There is zero reason for our party to invest in fringe, anti-Choice candidates. Americans are tired of politicians who feel more compelled to regulate a woman's body than Wall Street corruption. 70% of Americans support safe access to abortion services, it's clear now more than ever that members of congress need to accurately represent our values and defend the health of Women."

And Derrick Crowe, the progressive in the Austin-San Antonio corridor district occupied by anti-Choice freak Lamar Smith sums up with all the candidates I spoke with said: "The DCCC should retract this statement, apologize to the women they were selling out when making this statement, and issue instead a new statement in which they make it clear that women's rights are not negotiable."

Rep. Kaniela Ing is the most progressive Democrat in the Hawaii legislature. He may not be running for federal office-- I hope he does-- but he's certainly paying close attention to what Pelosi and Lujan have been saying. I like his response a lot: "Embracing candidates who do not support every woman's right to choose is a huge step backward for our party, both morally and strategically. Roe v. Wade was nearly 45 years ago. So abortion should not be framed as a new fight between progressives and moderate Democrats. It's a pillar of what Democrats stand for. We can and should learn from Republicans, who have recently dominated American politics on every level by running unapologetically conservative candidates. People vote when they are inspired by candidates who stand for something. Our advantage is that more folks share progressive values and support our issues. We have dignity, fairness, and equality on our side. When we run on our values, and not from them, we win."

Want to watch some good ideas from the Democratic Party? This guy was speaking at Politicon in Pasadena this last weekend-- and there was nothing in what he had to say about taking away women's right to choice. One has to wonder why party leaders like Pelosi and Lujan aren't on the same page as this DNC spokesperson. They should be if they're serious about winning back Congress:




UPDATE: From Crowley's Opponent

Alexandria Ocasio is running or the Queens/Bronx seat occuried by the corrupt conservative Pelosi has picked to run the House Dems after she's gone, Joe Crowley. "The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world," she told us. "Women across this country already suffer in their access to healthcare. The very idea of the Democratic Party compromising on healthcare for half of Americans is tantamount to becoming the very Republicans we are trying to overturn. Our focus should be on expanding healthcare to all Americans, not taking it away."

If The DCCC Continues To Pick Congressional Nominees, Instead Of Voters, The Democrats Will Never Win Back Congress

The only primaries these 4 should be involved with is defending themselves

Forget that you may have an inkling that here at DWT we feel Pelosi's incompetent and corrupt DCCC has become a source for both evil and failure over the last decade, rather than a worthwhile and constructive party organ. One of my first beefs with them-- under Rahm-- is how they tried to dictate-- despite their own "rule" to the contrary-- who Democratic nominees should be. They claim they don't, but they do-- all the time.

I asked a couple of dozen candidates for their views on the DCCC endorsing in primaries. First I spoke to some who either have DCCC tacit backing or are close to getting it. One told me that he wants DCCC backing in the general election when he has to face a Republican incumbent loaded with corporate special interest money. He told me he feels the voters in his district should pick the candidate, not some power-players in DC. I've never heard a candidate who the DCCC wants to back in a primary not wanting their backing before. This would be an historic first if it actually happens.

Another candidate, in a similar situation said this to me off the record: "We're now hearing they might interfere on our behalf... apparently they had some consultant meeting in DC and a question was asked about if there's a candidate who, on paper, looks like the right one (pedigree, fundraising, etc.) but it's becoming clear that there is a better candidate for the district with a better chance of winning, what would they do, and they acknowledged this openly and said they would use data to try and push the other person out, use the delegation, and spend against them in the primary if needed. I've heard more from other members that it is looking like this as well. Obviously I think this is what they should have been doing all along-- supporting the candidates from the communities with the best chances of winning. Maybe there are signs they are learning?"

I don't agree with him at all. He's a good candidate and I understand why he wants their help in clearing the field but it's anti-Democratic and I urged him to reject their help until after the primary.



Paul Perry is in an excruciatingly tough primary in swingy PA-07, with at least 7 vying for the Democratic nomination to take on Ryan rubber stamp Pat Meehan. There are several DCCC-type candidates-- including an "ex"-Republican-- and there are also 2 other progressives besides Paul Perry, state Senator Daylin Leach and last cycle's candidate Mary Ellen Balchunis. Last cycle, the DCCC didn't want Mary Ellen as the nominee and spent $14,500 on some manufactured establishment candidate, Bill Golderer, who they helped raise $351,551 to depend against Mary Ellen, about $300,000 more than she spent in the primary. But she whipped his ass from Worcester, Whitemarsh and Blue Bell down through Radnor, Wayne, Marple Township, Springfield and down and around to Intercourse and the suburbs south of Reading-- 52,792 (74%) to 18,509 (26%). The DCCC was confused about how someone they judged as not able to win votes could beat the well-funded corporate candidate they parachuted into the district. What did they learn? Absolutely NOTHING! In fact, instead of rallying around Balchunis to defeat Meehan, Pelosi-- who in her more and more difficult to cover up dotage is always babbling her nonsense about "when women win..."-- led a campaign to sabotage Balchunis' fundraising ability. The DCCC pulled out of the district entirely and, allowed Mary Ellen to be swamped with Meehan's cash while Hillary won the same day Meehan beat her. That's what they do. They lie and tell sappy donors they don't interfere in primaries and what they did to Mary Ellen is what they have always done since Rahm was Pelosi's first tragic pick as DCCC chair. And they're doing the same thing today-- picking, for example, Pelosi's 2018 DCCC mascot to run in CA-39.

Here's how Mary Ellen explained what happened to her: "When I taught Political Parties & Elections, I told my students that primaries were when the electorate selected who they wanted to represent the party in the general election, not who the DCCC wanted to represent the party! Although, that is what the DCCC did in my 2016 congressional campaign. They went outside the district and found a wealthy candidate who angered many political committee people and leaders. In Chester County, the Kennett Area Democrats sent numerous emails to the DCCC Chair saying we have a candidate; and it is Mary Ellen Balchunis. As someone, who has worked for the party for decades and ran when the party asked me to run in what many described as the most gerrymandered district and knowing I would lose with the idea 2016 would be better, it was very demoralizing to have the DCCC put someone up against me, rather than support me. I went on to defeat their candidate who outspent me by hundreds of thousands of dollars, 74% - 26%. If the DCCC wants to be the people's party and win, they should let the people select the candidate in the primary and support that candidate in the general!"

Anyway, let's get back to Paul Perry. Yesterday he told us that he believes "the DCCC should be leading the hard work that many grassroots and independent organizations are doing to build a strong bench of progressives candidates, beyond those who can simply self-fund or raise millions in corporate PAC dollars. While it's fine to have high expectations of candidates in terms of community resources they can leverage to win elections, we need Democratic Party leadership to consider and plan for the long game of building the capacity of local leaders while empowering them to win elections and govern as just leaders. Any backdoor influencing of primaries should be brought to light and ended in order for the playing to be leveled for candidates across all lines of difference if we're aiming to build a truly egalitarian Democratic Party."

With Gabriel McArthur's decision yesterday to withdraw from the CO-06 congressional primary and run for Colorado Secretary of State, Levi Tillemann is left as the progressive alternative to the shady establishment candidate the DCCC is pushing, Jason Crow. He wants the DCCC to stop pushing Crow and let the Democratic voters of the district decide who their nominee should be. "This primary," Levi told us this morning, "should be about ideas, public service and what's best for the people of Colorado-- not the preferences of unaccountable political operatives in Washington. Too often, the DCCC gets behind candidates that are simply the most likely to funnel cash into the coffers of the DCCC. They're great at raising money, but not at winning hearts and minds."

Another candidate who has extensive experience with the DCCC from the inside, practically wrote a whole post on the topic but asked that I skip the name part. "When I'm elected I'm perfectly happy to go on the record in terms of the DCCC but for now if we could not associate my name with any of..."

What the DCCC is doing is a disservice to us finding the best candidates for each Congressional District in Orange County. They clearly have picked their candidate in the 48th district and while he looks great on paper and he may end up being a good candidate, it doesn't do anyone good to push out all the other candidates before we actually know whether he's the real deal or whether he's going to completely fall on face.  We've seen lots of people who seem like they are great candidates on paper who have failed miserably. Running for office is hard and no matter the resume its hard to predict who is going to be good at it, especially when none of them have run before. If you are the DCCC you should be trying to find as many good candidates as possible, make sure they all have the tools to succeed, and let them fight it out amongst themselves to see who is actually the best candidate. And you shouldn't just be looking for rich people just for the sole reason that they are rich and that they have lots of rich friends who can help them raise money. Who knows for instance if they actually represent the party's ideals? This obsession with rich people and the donor class is at the very root of are party's problems. It's like no wonder as a party we don't have the ability actually talk to working people.

It's also a terrible idea to push people away from a district like 48, where they actually might be the best candidate, to places they don't actually live. In the 39th congressional district in particular the DCCC seems to have a complete lack of understanding in terms of what a bad idea it is to run someone not from that district. If they had paid any attention to the Sukhee Kang/Josh Newman race they would know what a bad idea it is. If the candidates who live in 48 and who are running in 39 are as good as people think they are, let them run in the district that they actually live in. Look at what happened with Ossoff in Georgia; whatever his reasons in terms of not living in the district and no matter how good they were, he gave Republicans a free attack line to use against him and I don't know if that's why he lost but it certainly didn't help.

There are candidates who are potentially announcing soon in 45 who actually live in 48 and preferred to run there and were told not to. How does that help anyone run against Mimi Walters, who herself doesn't live in 45 but instead lives and is registered to vote at her $8 million dollar home in Laguna Beach in the 48th district? The real problem is they do not seem to understand that Orange County is not a monolithic place and each of these communities are incredibly unique and separate from one another. It's not the game of musical chairs they think it is.

One of the things I noticed when I was running is that no one seems to have learned any lessons from our past failures. Since 2010 whatever we've been doing as Democrats hasn't worked and there all kinds of failures across the country that demonstrate that. In California we continue to fail cycle after cycle to unseat vulnerable Democrats in territory that should be very favorable to us. The fact that Steve Knight, David Valadao, and Jeff Denham are still members of Congress is a demonstration of that. And yet when I asked people who are part of the party's political apparatus what we had done wrong in those seats or in other places around the country and how I could avoid making the same mistakes, no one seemed to have any idea or have any other advice other than "raise a ton of money and hope the national environment is in your favor." That seems extremely problematic to me that no one seems to have any other ideas.

I very much tried to reach out and find out who in the Democratic Party was being the most innovative when it came to campaign strategy and what are the things that I could be doing differently to make sure that I would actually win, and no one had anything to offer. The only advice anyone has is always just to raise as much money as humanely possible. I'm not complaining about that because you can't win without money but just because you have it doesn't mean that you are going to win. More fundamentally we just completed an election where Donald Trump is now the President of the United States and nobody seems to have any idea as what we should be doing differently when it comes to campaigns.

And the thing is it has nothing to do with who is in charge of the DCCC. You can keep changing the staff and keep changing the person in charge and things aren't going to change. Because the way you rise in a place like DC is by learning to be like the people in charge and developing the skills that they have. That's how we as a party have trained an entire class of political operatives and consultants. They are where they are and have risen in politics because they learned how to be like their predecessors and mentors. And when you put them in a position of authority, they are never going to do anything differently. Because they've never learned any other skill-set and doing it the way they know has gotten them where they are. And they also know by continuing to do it that way, even if they lose races, that's the way to avoid blame (as everyone will just blame the political environment instead).

The other thing I've learned is that when you talk to actual members and ask them about their experiences with the DCCC when they first ran, none of them have anything good to say about it. There is something wrong whenever even the members themselves have nothing good to say about the institution and when they give you advice along the lines of "don't let the DCCC push you around."

Bob Poe has been a major Democratic donor from Florida who was once chairman of the Florida Democratic Party and got a taste of what the DCCC is all about when he ran for Congress last cycle and was successfully opposed by a Pelosi New Dem pick, Val Demings, who predictably, has turned out to be one of the worst Democratic freshmen in Congress. It was hard to get Poe to tell his story but he did share a few words he thought would be helpful for DWT readers to understand. "From the day Democrats became the minority in the House of Representatives in 2010 until today, I have received literally thousands of emails from the DCCC asking, begging and pleading for contributions to defeat Republicans and regain the majority. Countless donors large and small have donated millions in pursuit of that noble effort. But, what most donors don't know is the dirty little secret that the DCCC spends a significant amount of of their scarce resources not defeating Republicans but in defeating Democrats. Each cycle, the DCCC involves itself in Democratic primaries-- even in races that are safely Democratic regardless of who wins the primary. This practice is dishonest and it needs to stop."

Doctor David Gill is running in an Illinois district the DCCC keeps losing. He explained to use this morning that "Perhaps no Congressional district in America better reflects the deep schism within the Democratic party than IL-13. As we saw during last year's Presidential primaries, there is a deep divide between the corporatist Democrats and the Berniecrats. I defeated the DCCC's hand-picked candidate in the 2012 primary in IL-13, and I went on to lose the general election that year by just three-tenths of one percent. I was handicapped by the presence of a liberal Independent on the ballot that year, a man who expressed all of the same views as me, arguing in support of campaign finance reform, single-payer healthcare, gay marriage, a woman's right to make her own reproductive health choices, and aggressive action against climate change. That liberal Independent received a little more than seven percent of the vote, and Republican Rodney Davis went off to Washington as an accidental Congressman.

"The progressive positions that I support actually won in this district by approximately seven points in 2012. However, the DCCC insisted that my progressive stances had cost me the election, and they chose to run a candidate with much more 'moderate' views in 2014. The result: the 'moderate' Democrat lost by 50-60 times what I had lost by two years earlier.

"And did the DCCC learn anything from the 2014 debacle? Hardly-- rather than supporting my current campaign, they have once again recruited a more 'moderate' Democrat, a woman who has not expressed any public support for issues such as single-payer, a $15 per hour minimum wage, or tuition-free public universities. One can only theorize about the DCCC's motivation in spurning a physician who outperformed President Obama in this district, but one certainly has to wonder if the DCCC's primary goal is to win seats for Democrats. Are they more interested in having lukewarm 'moderate' candidates that they can control, but who subsequently lose decisively, or do they truly want to attain majority status in the U.S. House?"

UPDATE: Lou Vince Would Have Beaten Knight In CA-25

The DCCC pushed a progressive police officer and local elected official, Lou Vince, out of the CA-25 race last cycle to make room for some rich guy-- a Beverly Hills attorney, Knight never stopped emphasizing, from far off Orange County-- and that ended catastrophically. While Hillary was decisively beating Trump in the district, Caforio sat around waiting for her coattails to sweep Knight away... something that didn't happen. Caforio says he wants to try again though polls show he would lose again with almost exactly the same numbers. This morning Lou Vince, who isn't running again, told us that "The DCCC is the reason that we have lost so many races in the last few cycles. They fail to learn any lessons from their losses and that's the primary reason we lost in CA-25 in 2016. Rather than focus on candidates that understand issues and connect with the voters, they'd rather have candidates that function as ATMs and use D.C. talking points like robots. Their meddling needs to stop and they need to stop importing carpetbaggers to lose in winnable districts. They need to stop inserting their vanilla centrist candidates claiming to be progressives."

More On A 2018 Role For Hillary-- In Pennsylvania's 7th District

Earlier today we ran a post about Hillary's promise/threat-- depending on your point of view-- to campaign for Democratic candidates next year in the districts she won. She did relatively well in the suborn collar counties around Philly-- although her coattails were... nonexistent and all three Republican districts are still represented by Republicans. Of the 3, Hillary did best in the ridiculously gerrymandered PA-07, Pat Meehan's district (formerly Joe Sestak's district). In 2008 Obama beat McCain there 53% to 46% but 4 years later it was Romney's win-- 50-49%, less than 7,000 votes (out of 360,000 cast). Last year Hillary beat Trump 49.3% to 47.0%.

The Blue America-endorsed candidate, Mary Ellen Balchunis, beat the DCCC corporate shill in the primary-- 52,792 (74%) to 18,509 (26%) and the DCCC was so outraged that a progressive beat their garbage candidate that they sabotaged Balchunis' campaign and guaranteed another term for Meehan. While Hillary was racking up her win there, Meehan beat Balchunis 225,678 (59.5%) to 153,824 (40.5%). Meehan raised $2,419,636 to Balchunis' $201,162, the DCCC not just refusing to help, just urging institutional Democratic donors to "not waste their money." That was all Pelosi, pulling those strings by the way-- the one who babbles incoherently about how we all win when women win or something like that.

Balchunis may run again; she hasn't announced yet. But 6 Democrats-- although one, Elizabeth Moro is an "ex"-Republican-- have: Daylin Leach, John McGinty, Dan Muroff, Paul-David Perry and Molly Sheehan.

Balchunis was happy to go on the record with how she feels about campaigning with Hillary. To look at her platform, you'd think she's a Berniecrat; but she's also a personal friend of Hillary's. She said that she'd "be honored to campaign with Hillary for the following six reasons:

1. In the November election, Hillary was by far the best candidate and most qualified candidate ever for President. As a former First Lady of a state, she is familiar with the work of our Governors. As a former U.S. Senator and a healthcare expert, she has personal experience in Congress. As a former Secretary of State, she has foreign experience.

2. Many Trump supporters thought Trump would make the cost of their healthcare go down, not go away! I have some Republican friends who voted for Trump and now have buyers' remorse. They are now part of the Resistance and they talk about how much better Hillary would have been. Not to mention how much more scholarly her tweets are!

3. There is no way that Hillary would allow maternity care to be removed from healthcare nor would she decrease medicaid or heavily increase healthcare cost for individuals in their sixties. I was one of those women who had the 24 hour drive by deliveries when insurance companies were only paying for 24 hours. Babies were dying because their new moms didn't recognize the signs of jaundice when they got home from the hospital. I worked and lobbied with the students in my Women in Politics class for the Baby Bill to increase Maternity stays from 24 hours to a minimum of 48 hours. When Pres. Clinton signed that bill, I was invited with my two year old daughter by First Lady Hillary Clinton to the Rose Garden signing ceremony. She has proven that she is pro-healthcare.

4. Hillary had 3 million more votes, if the Russians didn't hack her campaign, troll her campaign and put fake news stories out, I firmly believe that she would be our President. I was one of the dozen of Congressional campaigns that was hacked by the Russians. I know that if they hacked my race in PA-07, they hacked Hillary's campaign. I had very knowledgeable Democrats asking me if the story about Hillary having a fatal disease was true? I said: "Where are you getting your news?" I was told the "internet"! Furthermore, Hillary was up by 21% in my district before the Comey letter.

5. As former Secretary of State, I know that Hillary would defend our Democracy, our elections and our country against further hacking by the Russians, unlike Pres. Trump. PA-07 is considered by some as the most gerrymandered district in the nation. In defending our democracy, I include fighting against gerrymandering that is rigging our system. I won a national award for my work on Ethics in government from the American Society for Public Administration. Gerrymandering and hacking are cheating to me.

6. Finally, Hillary came around to support Bernie's policies. My policies are Bernie's policies, the fight for $15, universal healthcare and free college tuition. As a former Fulbright in Sweden, I saw first hand the benefits of universal healthcare, women also had over a year off with pay for maternity care and men had 6 weeks of paternity care, and my Swedish students had free tuition. I really like that Sen. Sanders said our candidates should be from the middle class (I resemble that!) and we should help them raise funds. "They shouldn't be fundraisers." Unlike Jon Ossoff, I live in the district; and no one can tie me to Nancy Pelosi. She never helped me, even after I defeated her DCCC candidate 74%- 26% in the primary. I would love Hillary's help: PA has 0 women in Congress out of 18 Congressmen. I would love Bernie's help too!

One of the other Democrats in the race-- also a progressive-- state Senator Daylin Leach just got back to me on the Hillary question too:

I would be honored to have Hillary come campaign with me in my district. She is extremely well thought-of and would be a huge draw.

Mary Ellen Balchunis-- Ratf**ked And Hacked

America's most gerrymandered district-- drawn to protect Pat Meehan's career

DWT has obtained an advance copy of the introduction to progressive congressional candidate Mary Ellen Balchunis. We endorsed her in 2016 and we have urged her to run again in 2018. I want to share the introduction to her new book, Hacked And Rat**cked in the Presidential Election.

-by Mary Ellen Balchunis

In 2014, Congressman Bob Brady (D) and the Delaware County Democratic Party leaders came to me as a member of the PA Democratic State Committee and asked me to run against Congressman Pat Meehan (R) in PA 7th Congressional District. Congressman Brady was honest to me. He told me that I would be running in such a gerrymandered district, that I would not win. America Votes, a national, nonpartisan nonprofit, described the district: “Pennsylvania is the worst gerrymandered state in the nation, and PA-07 is the worst of the worst.” Congressman Brady advised me not to put any of my money into the campaign. Other leaders told me that if I ran in 2014, I would get name recognition; and if I ran again in 2016, it would be a Presidential election year when more Democrats come out and with Hillary on the ballot, there would be a record number of women coming out to the polls for this historic election. Of course, we know those things never happened. We didn’t count on FBI Director Comey. We saw Hillary up by 21% in our county before his statements. We also didn’t count on the Russians. Donald Trump won, Hillary lost and I lost. My race was part of the DNC hacked emails by the Russians and I was “rat**cked” by the “worst” gerrymandered district in the nation.

As a Political Science Professor, one of the classes that I taught was Congress. I know that it is difficult to beat a sitting incumbent, that members of Congress usually get re-elected by at least 90%. I know the incumbent have all of the advantages. I know that gerrymandering is wrong, drawing the district in an unusual way to insure that the incumbent wins. Taking blacks out of the district, and taking out thousands and thousands of Democrats to ensure your own victory is wrong. I also know that it is the law that elections should be fair, not manipulated by the sitting incumbents and state legislatures. Elected officials shouldn’t be able to pick their voters. The voters should be able to fairly pick their elected officials, not the other way around.

PA-07 was former Congressman Joe Sestak’s district. It was predominately Delaware County when Sestak held it. The state legislature with input from Congressman Pat Meehan turned PA-07 into five counties, Delaware, Montgomery, Chester, Lancaster and Berks counties. As he has noted on his website, this was the district that he represented when he was U.S. Attorney. He neglected to say that it is the heaviest Republican parts of those counties. The district went from predominantly a working and middle class district to a district that includes parts of the wealthy main line, Amish Country, a very small area of poor Chester City, and mushroom farmers. You can see how the different needs of the constituents makes this district very unfair to the voters.

I knew that this was going to be a tough race; I didn’t know how tough it would be. Former Pennsylvania Secretary of Planning and Policy for Gov. Wolf called me a “heroine” for running in this district. I heard Iraqi veteran, then Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, talk about the difference between war and politics. She said, “At least in war, you know who your enemies are.” This was so true and probably the hardest part of the campaign for me. Some of the people and organizations that I thought would help were not there. Remember, I was begged to run in 2014 so I expected that the party would be behind me; and for the most part, the local parties in all five counties were outstanding and very helpful as my primary numbers showed. However, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) was not. Many in the Committees sent numerous emails to the DCCC saying that they had a candidate, and I was there candidate. I had been involved with the Democratic Party since I was an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania. I worked in the campaign andserved as an Assistant to Democratic Mayor Wilson Goode, the first African American Mayor in Philadelphia; and I went on to serve as Vice Chair of the Upper Darby Democrats and Vice Chair of the Delaware County Democrats. I attended seven Democratic National Conventions in various roles from Delegate, Alternate Delegate, Platform Committee and Special Guest. I was elected twice to serve as a member of PA Democratic State Committee. In addition, I was Faculty Moderator of the College Democrats at my university for 24 years, sending students to numerous internships in both parties, but in a heavily Democratic city, especially to Democratic campaigns and elected officials’ offices. I could not believe that the DCCC did not support me in the primary and not only did they not support me, but they put out the word not to donate to me and they put an opponent against me. In fact, the opponent didn’t even live in the district; and he had a terrible voting record. He did have money. However, even though he outspends me in the primary by hundreds of thousands of dollars, I won the primary, 74% - 26% or as Politics PA said I “crushed my opponent.” Even with this big victory, the DCCC still did not endorse me in the general election; and I understand that they supported few Democratic candidates who defeated their endorsed DCCC candidates in the primary.

I was very proud of the campaign that I was able to run and the impressive endorsements that I received. Endorsed early in the primary by the Congressional Progressive Caucus; I was also one of the 12 Congressional Campaigns endorsed by Democracy for America. I got more support from the Progressive community and Hillary, herself, than I did from the DCCC. The Congressional Progressive Caucus said that they liked my campaign because it was a “People Powered Campaign.” Needless to say, I was pleased to see Keith Ellison appointed as Deputy Democratic National Committee Chair because I believe the party needs his knowledge of grassroots politics and not the constant focus the DCCC has on fundraising. I was also thrilled to hear Sen. Sanders say that we need candidates from the middle class who understand the needs of the middle class and not wealthy candidates who fundraise.

I have known Hillary since 1992 when she spoke to my La Salle University students during her husband’s first Presidential campaign. I got to know her more when I lobbied with the students in my Women in Politics class on the Baby Bill to increase maternity stays to a minimum of 48 hours. When President Clinton was signing the bill, I was invited by the First Lady’s office to the signing of the Baby Bill. I really admire Hillary, her intelligence, life long dedication to public service, and her tenacity; yet, on the campaign trail, my policies were Bernie Sanders policies, the fight for $15, affordable college education, opposing TPP, climate change and equal pay for women. Of course, Hillary did end up adopting those policies toward the end of her campaign.

My campaign would make a great movie. My Campaign Manager who helped me with the big primary win when we were heavily outspent was arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Convention and taking floor, food and parking passes. My race was one of the dozen of congressional campaigns that were part of the DNC emails hacked by the Russians and released by WikiLeaks. It was the Russians effort to embarrass the DCC and describe my opponent as a weak candidate who they put up to “primary” me. Because of the Russian involvement in my race, I participated in the PA recount effort by Green Party Candidate Jill Stein; and I became Exhibit #10 in Jill Stein’s federal lawsuit for a recount in Pennsylvania.

PA has no women at the national and statewide levels. See the Pennsylvania Democratic Website and scroll down to see the pictures of the “Our Leaders.” You will see 13 pictures, all men! Hillary was supposed to easily win PA that is why I couldn’t believe during the debate that Donald Trump was saying if I don’t win PA, the election was “rigged.” Hillary lost PA. Katie McGinty who was running for U.S. Senate also lost. I lost and the other three Democratic women lost as well as the one Republican female candidate for Congress lost. Known as an all boys club, Pennsylvania’s federal delegation of 20 (two U.S. Senators, Bob Casey and Pat Toomey, and 18 Congressmen) is all male. During the campaign, we put out a picture of the women in the PA federal delegation, a picture of an empty Congress! It was one of our biggest fundraising email blasts.

During the campaign, we worked closely with the Hillary Coordinated Offices. Although, they focused primarily on Hillary, as one would expect, they did help other candidates like myself by making calls and distributing our literature along with Hillary’s literature. However, at the very end of the campaign, we were informed by several sources that one of Hillary’s staffer told the volunteers that they believed that my gerrymandering was too great for us to win. I wonder now if they saw the polls tightening. When my campaign manager expressed his outrage that we were promised help and we would have arranged other help if we knew that they were cutting us, our literature began to be carried again. As a political scientist, I thought it was a really stupid move to cut me to help the state representative candidates because if people did not vote for me and stopped with Hillary or our Senate candidate Katie McGinty, the chances of them continuing down the ballot to the state representative candidates were pretty slim. They were costing their state representative candidates votes more than me. The state representative candidates running with me in the 7th all lost.

In the end, in my very gerrymandered district, the vote was 59.4% for Meehan and 39.6% for me. My numbers were consistent with the previous Democratic Congressional candidate, my Penn classmate and Chairman George Badey, who ran in this congressional district in 2012. The 7th is known as the “Poster Child for Gerrymandering.” I was told that I got the “most that I could in the gerrymandered district.

When I kicked off my 2016 congressional campaign in April 2015, I did it with a Gerrymandered Tour of the five counties included in the 7th. I was told by many people to stop talking about gerrymandering, that people didn’t care about gerrymandering. Gerrymandering cost me a lot of money, I often heard during call time that I would like to give you money, but there is no way that you can win in that gerrymandered district. In 2014, we hired Celinda Lake, a national pollster who specialized in female candidates, to do our poll; and she said that if I could get my message out that people liked my background more than they liked Meehan’s background and they liked my issues more than they liked Meehan’s issues. Of course, getting your message out takes money and without money, we couldn’t afford TV.

This campaign wasn’t my first experience with gerrymandering. In 1991, Congressman Brady asked me if I would run for State Representative against a sitting State Representative. He told me that three of the four ward leaders were going to endorse me. I told him that I didn’t want to run against a female that there were so few females in office. He said to me that “Men run against men all of the time.” I said that I would think about it. Before I could think about it, I found out my entire condominium building, all 31 floors were taken out of the district. I called Speaker of the House Bob O’Donnell and asked him how this could happen. He said: “Before we begin redistricting, we ask the representatives whom they want in and whom they want out; and Rep. Babette Joseph’s wanted you out.”

My daughter, Lauren, told me about her friend’s dad, former St. Senator Bruce Marks, a Republican, who was involved in a campaign where his opponent was involved in “fraudulent” absentee ballots. His opponent, William Stinson, won the election, but Federal Court Judge Newcomer said Mark’s opponent’s actions were so egregious that the judge took the victory away and gave it to Marks. My daughter said: “What your opponent did by taking out all those Democrats and African Americans in your district was worst. You should bring a lawsuit.” Out of the mouth of babes comes brilliance, although, Lauren is a college honor student. She made me think. If an Olympic athlete is found to have cheated, they strip the award and give it to the next in line. Sen. Marks’ case made front page of the New York Times. With precedence, it certainly could be one way to handle gerrymandering. Independent commissions and computer models are other ways; but they would likely have to wait until the next redistricting in time for the 2022 congressional elections.

In PA, a nonprofit group called Fair Districts has been holding informational meetings on gerrymandering. They are getting standing room only audiences. Upper Dublin in Montgomery County just had 750 people turn up to hear about gerrymandering. An article just came out entitled: “How Gerrymandering Got Sexy? I wish it was sexy when I was running, but I am glad people are paying attention now.

In this book, you will see emails about my race that the Russians hacked from the DNC and were released by Wiki Leaks. You will also see how difficult, if not impossible, it is to win in a gerrymandered district. Gerrymandering is not good for the constituents; when the elected officials have safe seats, they don’t have to meet with their opponents, constituents or hold town hall meeting. Congressman Meehan never met with me in the 2014 campaign. The Delaware County League of Women Voters called me to set up a debate with the Congressman. She wanted me to send a representative to negotiate the debate. I was on the Philadelphia Board of the League of Women Voters and helped write the Mayor’s Debate Briefing Book. When Meehan heard this, he cancelled the debate. He sent his campaign staffer, Caitlin, to sit with me at community forums, and she was not allowed to speak for the Congressman. It was bizarre. I said that I was not sitting with her in 2016. I asked for a debate in 2016. I got a list of requirements that I had to sign off on including no press and no rebuttals to meet him at a senior retirement community. The Congressman didn’t even have his issues posted on his campaign website, so much for transparency. Gerrymandering is also very bad for governing, and it explains why we are at such a partisan stalemate. When you select the extremes in your district, it is difficult to make compromises. Hacked by the Russians and Ratf**ked by gerrymandering, it was a campaign a Political Scientist and a political junkie could really appreciate; but legislators and good government activists should work to avoid at all cost in the future.

Note from Mary Ellen: "RATF**KED is the title of David Daley’s book, Rat F**ked, The True Story Behind The Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy; and it is a term used for Political Sabotage. It was widely used during Watergate. In the summer of 2015, David Daley followed me as I traveled through my gerrymandered district.

Planned Parenthood Support Much Bigger Than Trump Support In Key GOP-Held Districts

Polling for the runoff in the GA-06 race to replace Tom Price is very tight-- incredible for such a red district-- and Jon Ossoff is slightly ahead of radical right Republican Karen Handel-- 48-47%. Republican outside groups-- primarily the NRCC, the Chamber of Commerce and Ryan's shady, corporately-financed SuperPAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund have already spent over $7 million tearing Ossoff down and trying to bolster Handel. Friday Trump was in Atlanta raising $750,000 for Handel's campaign.

I don't think the new PPP surveys have been made public, but they conducted polls in 13 Republican-held districts for Planned Parenthood, all districts where Trump did poorly, 12 of which he lost to Clinton (all but NY-19, where he won narrowly):

• AZ-02 (McSally) 44.7%
• CA-21 (Valadao) 39.7%
• CA-49 (Issa) 43.2%
• CO-06 (Coffman) 41.3%
• FL-26 (Curbelo) 40.6%
• FL-27 (Ros-Lehtinen) 38.9%
• IL-06 (Roskam) 43.2%
• KS-03 (Yoder) 46.0%
• MN-03 (Paulsen) 41.4%
• NJ-07 (Lance) 47.5%
• NY-19 (Faso) 50.8%
• PA-07 (Meehan) 47.0%
• VA-10 (Comstock) 42.2%

Taken as a whole, the voters in the 13 districts-- remember all represented by Republicans-- oppose defunding Planned Parenthood-- 59% to 35%. The poll also shows that the majority of voters in those districts support ObamaCare, 53% to 36%. TrumpCare includes a provision to defund Planned Parenthood. PPP's director, Tom Jensen: "These results make it clear that targeting Planned Parenthood-- or trying to replace the Affordable Care Act with the American Health Care Act more generally-- is politically perilous for these swing district Republican members of Congress. Voters in these districts like Planned Parenthood, they like the Affordable Care Act, and efforts to hurt those things will imperil the Republicans in these districts as they look toward reelection next year."



Furthermore 54% of respondents said that they're less likely to vote for their Republican congressman if they vote to defund Planned Parenthood, compared to 30% who said they would be more likely to support them. Planned Parenthood plans to target Curbelo, Meehan, McSally, Issa, Coffman and Roskam with a TV ad campaign.

Mary Ellen Balchunis is the progressive Democrat who ran against Pat Meehan in 2016. The DCCC didn’t just not support her (in a district Hillary won); they actually sabotaged her campaign after she beat their preferred Wall Street-friendly candidate in a primary— a primary she won with 74% of the vote, despite the DCCC spending $200,000 to bolster her opponent. With Steve Israel finally gone, perhaps the DCCC won’t try screwing her over again in 2018, when she is once again likely to run against Meehan. We checked in with her today about his TrumpCare shenanigans. “In the first vote in committee, Congressman Meehan voted with Trump to defund Planned Parenthood, push what amounted to an Elderly Tax, and drop protections for patients with pre-existing conditions. I helped Planned Parenthood organize a ‘Pop-up Rally’ outside his district office before the vote was pulled. Meehan refused to say how he would vote. It wasn't until AFTER it was pulled that he said he wouldn't have voted for it. He is a Master Politician! He was campaign manager to Sen. Arlen Specter and Sen. Rick Santorum; and, of course, he was the master-mind in the drawing of PA-07 congressional district, considered the ‘poster child for gerrymandering.’ America Votes has said it is the ‘worst’ gerrymandered district in the nation. It is not surprising that Meehan is now saying that he will not vote to defund Planned Parenthood, now that the polls are showing that there is not support to defund. He is not a friend of Planned Parenthood or the many low income women who use the services. I don't trust him; Meehan, or as I say MEANhan, has been voting with Trump 92.2% of the time.”

And today's last minute development: another House Republican leadership scam. Greg Sargent hit the nail on the head:

With multiple media reports suggesting that the drive to repeal Obamacare may be on life-support, House Republicans are rolling out a last-ditch effort to salvage their repeal-and-replace bill before support for it collapses once again. They plan to introduce a new amendment that is designed to give moderates a way to pretend that the GOP bill won’t harm people with preexisting conditions-- and thus, a way to support the bill in the numbers needed to pass it.

In reality, the new amendment is unlikely to insulate moderate and vulnerable Republicans from potent political attacks if they do support the bill, since it will be pretty much just as cruel in human terms-- on multiple levels-- as the current one is. Unfortunately, with moderates under all kinds of other pressures to support the bill, the possibility of this working with just enough of them can’t be ruled out.

The new amendment, which is being championed by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.)-- who made a huge splash by opposing the bill yesterday-- would essentially add $8 billion of funding in addition to the so-called high-risk pools, which are supposed to function as a safety net for people with preexisting conditions who lose coverage as a result of the GOP bill. The Republican plan would gut protections for people with preexisting ailments, because it would allow states to waive the prohibition on insurers from jacking up premiums for them-- a prohibition that’s called “community rating”-- which could lead to soaring costs and many of them getting priced out of the market entirely.

This is a major reason that so many moderates oppose the GOP bill. Even though the bill also requires states that waive those protections to set up some sort of mechanism for people with preexisting conditions-- such as high-risk pools-- history has shown that they are traditionally underfunded, hit sick people with massive premiums (since only sick people are in the risk pools), and, as a result, leave many uncovered.

Thus the new $8 billion amendment. The Associated Press reports that this $8 billion would be allotted to helping some of those people cover some of those costs so that fewer go without coverage. But as the AP notes, the sum is a paltry addition relative to what is currently in the bill, and that sum is already being derided as woefully inadequate-- so it’s hard to see how this $8 billion changes much.

...And let’s not forget the crucial larger context here. Though the discussion is heavily focused on preexisting conditions, the GOP bill would also cut $800 billion in spending on Medicaid, which could leave 14 million fewer people covered by that program, even as it delivers an enormous tax cut to the rich. So, even with this amendment-- which itself would probably do little to mitigate the harm to people with preexisting conditions-- the bill is still a massively regressive rollback of the ACA’s historic expansion of coverage. Many GOP moderates who opposed the first and most recent version of the bill cited this, too, as a crucial reason for opposing it. So it’s hard to see why this amendment should make a difference, in moral and substantive terms.

Of course, many of these moderates are probably looking for some way to get to Yes, and some may grab on to any kind of “change” to pretend that the bill’s cruel and regressive dimensions have somehow been mitigated. But if so, this could still constitute an enormous political risk. According to the New York Times’ whip count, a large number of House Republicans who currently oppose the GOP bill or are undecided are either moderates, or come from districts won by Hillary Clinton, or both. It’s very hard to see how this $8 billion addition will somehow insulate them from attacks, since the bill still guts protections for people with preexisting conditions and rolls back health coverage for millions and millions of poor people.

Key to understanding the politics here: Meadows and his vehemently anti-healthcare Freedom Caucus refused to vote for the bill unless it allowed insurance companies to charge whatever they like to cover people with pre-existing conditions. By agreeing to Upton's amendment, the Freedom Caucus has signaled that Upton isn't doing anything substantive to interfere with their jihad against healthcare for poor people. Even with Upton's amendment TrumpCare would still gut protections for people with pre-existing conditions and  end coverage for millions of poor people with the express purpose of giving a huge tax cut to multimillionaires and billionaires. And that is always something Fred Upton, hereditary scion of Whirlpool, has been in favor of. It steals $880 billion from Medicaid to further enrich the political donor class. And, according to the CBO, premiums rise by 20%. This is what "mainstream" Republicans are willing to vote for?

How Strong Will Hillary's Coattails Be?

Another way to ask that question might be something like, "Will Trump's Negative Coattails Sink The GOP 2 Weeks From Today?" In a report Sunday for the NY Times, Alexander Burns and Amy Chozick emphasized that Hillary was in Charlotte that day urging black voters to "punish Republican officeholders for supporting Trump... going beyond seeking simply a victory over Mr. Trump, asking voters to strengthen her hand in Congress and repudiate not just Mr. Trump but also Republicans who have accommodated or endorsed him." She asked her supporters to replace Richard Burr with Deborah Ross and the day before she was in Pennsylvania asking voters to defeat Pat Toomey and elect Katie McGinty. A few weeks earlier she was in Haverford, PA with progressive congressional candidate-- and old friend-- Mary Ellen Balchunis helping her in a campaign against garden variety Republican Pat Meehan, despite Pelosi's and the DCCC's attempt to sabotage Balchunis' campaign after she eviscerated their Wall Street-friendly conservaDem in the primary 74-26%, humiliating Steve Israel, Ben Ray Lujan and Pelosi.

In Charlotte she excoriated Burr for being too cowardly to stand up to Trump and Trumpism. "Unlike her opponent, Deborah has never been afraid to stand up to Donald Trump. She knows that people of courage and principles need to come together to reject this dangerous and divisive agenda."

It is a sign of the extraordinarily lopsided nature of the presidential race that, even in a Republican-controlled state like North Carolina, Mrs. Clinton is in a position to exhort voters to hand control of the Senate to Democrats. Though she is still not broadly popular, Mrs. Clinton has cast her candidacy-- and now, perhaps, her party-- as a safe harbor for voters across the political mainstream who find Mr. Trump intolerable.

...For Republicans, blunting Mrs. Clinton’s ability to carry other Democrats into office has become the overriding imperative in the final weeks of the 2016 race. With Mr. Trump so diminished as a competitor for Mrs. Clinton, Republicans say they will now ask voters in newly explicit terms to elect a divided government rather than giving Mrs. Clinton unchecked power.

...In addition to trailing by a wide margin in national polls, Mr. Trump has fallen well behind Mrs. Clinton in states that are likely to determine control of the Senate, including North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Hampshire, and also in suburban areas around the country that are critical to the Republicans’ House majority.

You may be reading that Texas is now a toss-up state, but that doesn't mean Clinton has a real chance to run the state. She's ahead in South Texas but Trump is still way ahead in west Texas and beating her comfortably in North Texas and East Texas. Where Trump is failing is in central Texas. He's weaker than he should be in the Republican suburbs that normally give the GOP huge statewide majorities and in the district where that can actually turn a House race blue-- TX-21, which includes suburbs south of Austin (Travis County) and north of San Antonio (Bexar County)-- the DCCC is completely unprepared. Fortunately, the stung and well-organized grassroots campaign Tom Wakely has mounted is paying off-- for Hillary and for himself. The DCCC-- visionless as usual-- could never imagine defeating powerful reactionary Lamar Smith, the Science Committee Chairman who denigrates Science and who worships at the alter of Donald Trump. Smith was the first congressional committee chairman to endorse Trump and the first member of Congress to contribute money to Trump. Although in recent days he's tried hemming and hawing when confronted by voters about why he's still backing Trump-- claiming he's "not getting involved in presidential politics"-- Smith is widely seen in TX-21 as a Trump surrogate and it's looking more and more likely that-- even with a single return call from the clueless DCCC-- Wakely (a Berniecrat who defeated a more conservative Democrat in the primary) can, with Hillary's help and Trump's weight around Smith's neck, defeat a key GOP chairman... more than the DCCC is even trying anywhere in the entire country. (You can help Wakley's campaign, as well as Balchunis'-- by tapping on the thermometer on the right.)

Bexar County, Sunday afternoon

A few minutes ago, very accurate polling came out from Democracy Corps, showing Hillary not just winning, but winning big across the country in the suburbs-- and that includes the big suburban areas the GOP has counted on near New York, San Antonio/Austin, San Diego and Las Vegas. As you know, that;s exactly where Blue America is working to bring it home for progressives the DCCC has shown little-to-no interest in. The chart below shows Hillary's overall numbers. Even better, among suburanites, she's up over Trump 54-36%. That's going to be enough to bring home wins-- if they can get their messages out-- for DuWayne Gregory, Tom Wakely, Doug Applegate and Ruben Kihuen, ending the disgraceful careers of, respectively, Peter King, Lamar Smith, Darrell Issa and Cresent Hardy. How would you like to see that November 8th?

John Pitney wrote an interesting column for USA Today, also Sunday, with some bearing on this-- basically about how the GOP contention that they'd be able to "control" or even "check" Trump, were he to win is just fantasy. And that's a danger most Americans probably don't want to gamble with.

Although an unusual number of Republican lawmakers have come out against him, most have not. Several who called on him to drop out of the race have since said that they will vote for him anyway. Why are so many siding with a candidate who is so unfit? High on the list of probable motives is fear of a challenge in a future GOP primary. In recent years, some high-profile Republicans have either lost to a hard-line conservative (for instance, former House majority leader Eric Cantor of Virginia) or endured an unexpectedly tough battle (Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi). Trump supporters are vocal and zealous, so it is not hard to picture them working to oust Republicans disloyal to their man.

If GOP lawmakers are cowering before candidate Trump, how could they stand up to President Trump? In addition to his wealth and political base, he would wield the vast power of the executive branch. There is little doubt that he'd use it to punish those who displease him. After House Speaker Paul Ryan said he'd no longer defend his bad behavior, Trump hinted at a leadership purge, saying, “I would think that Ryan wouldn't be there.”

...The feebleness of congressional oversight has been problem even under a more-or-less normal person such as Barack Obama. It would be a disaster under a fanatically secretive person such as Trump. He won’t release his tax returns, and he makes his campaign aides sign non-disclosure agreements. The mind boggles at the information that his administration would withhold from Congress and the American people.

Congress has always been at a disadvantage in checking the president’s power over foreign policy and national security. On hundreds of occasions, presidents have used military force overseas without congressional approval. In 1973, Congress tried to curb such activities by passing the War Powers Act. Numerous military actions over the past 43 years suggest that this measure is not effective.

The law requires the president to seek congressional authorization within 60 days of starting military action. This requirement does not limit the president’s power to launch a nuclear attack-- a process that would take less than an hour. Since the bombing of Hiroshima, a dozen chief executives have held this power, with no real external check at all. Each of these 12 presidents made mistakes, and some of them did very bad things, but none was reckless enough to start a nuclear war. That is why we are alive today.

Trump probably does not hope for Armageddon, and it seems unlikely that he would strike at a friendly nation. But it is all too plausible that his ignorance and rashness could start a crisis that escalates into a nuclear exchange. No one should vote for him in the hope that Congress could stay his hand-- because it can’t.

UPDATE: Just In:

We just got this one minute clip from our driver in Suffolk County-- literally, just now. And, of course, I had to share it. Play it for your friends, especially your friends on Long Island! Please. We can do this-- even without the DCCC.