Remember When Arizona Used To Be The Reddest State In America? Trump Has Changed That

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey has done a bad job for his state in confronting the pandemic and the chickens are starting to come home to roost. Ducey chose to listen to Trump instead of the medical professionals and Arizona is headed for a tough Wave II. Yesterday there were 396 new cases reported, bringing the total caseload to 14,566 (704 deaths). The state crossed the 2,000 cases per million line, a bad omen for a state rushing willy-nilly to re-open.

Yesterday Arizona's premier polling firm, OH Predictive Insights, headquartered in Phoenix, released a new survey that is devastating for the ArizonaRepublican Party. Headline" Arizona Visit Does Nothing to Boost Trump Fortunes in Arizona. Overall, Señor Trumpanzee is trailing Biden by 7 points.

"Trump," they wrote, "visited a Honeywell factory in early May. However, the president is stuck at 43 percent for the third OHPI poll in a row. Conversely, Former Vice President Biden continues to hover near the 50 percent level for the third straight poll. 'President Trump is going to have to do a lot more than parachute into Arizona to boost his sagging numbers,' said OHPI Chief of Research, Mike Noble. 'With six months to go until Election Day, Trump is going to have to invest heavily in Arizona to pull out a victory in The Grand Canyon State.'"

Although the margin between the two candidates shrunk by two points since April’s AZPOP poll of the race, the share of supporters who say they support Trump remains unchanged at 43 percent. The narrowing of the race comes from Joe Biden falling from 52 percent support in April to 50 percent in May.

Looking at the electorate in terms of economic status, Donald Trump is performing best among middle-income voters. He is statistically tied with Joe Biden among those making between $50k and $99k per year, while Biden leads by double digits among voters who make less than $50k or more than $99k.

The split among white voters of different levels of educational attainment that has been seen nationally shows itself in Arizona, too. Trump finds strength in white, non-college educated voters-- although there are signs his support among this group may not be as strong as it was when he won them in 2016. He is leading Joe Biden among non-college educated white voters by 6 points but trailing by 11 among whites who have a college degree.

Another key constituency who will play a role in deciding the winner of the 2020 election are the voters who have unfavorable views of both candidates. As it stands now, 44 percent of Arizona likely voters have favorable views of President Trump and 51 percent view Joe Biden favorably. On the other hand, 53 percent of voters view Trump unfavorably and 45 percent say the same of Joe Biden.

While the overall number of voters who have unfavorable views of both candidates is small (about 6 percent of the sample), the gap in their support is striking. More than six in ten (63%) of these voters say they would vote for Joe Biden, whereas only 6 percent say they would vote for Donald Trump.

The all-important lesser of two evils vote

"As this election heats up and negative ads from both sides pour into Arizona, the share of voters who dislike both candidates is sure to rise," says OHPI data analyst Jacob Joss, "Who they end up supporting will be a determining factor come November."

And that ain't all, folks. The Arizona Republic is the biggest newspaper in the state and they had equally bad news for Ducey-appointed Senator Martha McSally, as she continues her slide towards political oblivion. Laurie Roberts: "The latest tracking poll shows Republican Sen. Martha McSally losing ground to Democrat Mark Kelly but that's not what should have her reaching for the Maalox."

From the Republican uh-oh department: Arizona Sen. Martha McSally is sliding in the polls, dropping four percentage points in a month.

McSally now trails Democrat Mark Kelly by 13 points, according to the latest tracking poll by OH Predictive Insights.

While the April poll of 600 likely voters favored Kelly 51% to McSally’s 42%, in May it’s now 51%-38%.

The poll shows independents breaking more than 2-1 for Kelly.

“McSally is doing terribly,” pollster Mike Noble told me on Monday. “There’s no way to find a bright spot on that one.”

And that’s not even the bad news for McSally.

The bad news comes from Maricopa County, where Republicans rule.

At least, they did rule, until Democrat Kyrsten Sinema defeated McSally there in 2018-- stealing 88 mostly-suburban precincts that normally would go to the Republican nominee.

McSally's declining support lies within the 4 percent margin of error in the May tracking poll, a blend of live and automated calls made between May 9 to May 11. But her Maricopa County numbers are a disaster.

In May 2019, this same tracking poll showed Kelly up over McSally, 46%-41%, among likely voters in Maricopa County.

In May 2020, Kelly has climbed to 54% in Maricopa County while McSally has dropped to 36%.

Just think about that for a moment. Kelly has gone from a five-point advantage in Maricopa County to an 18-point cruise.

That’s a stunner when you consider that Maricopa County in recent years always has gone for Republicans (well, except for now-ex-state Superintendent Diane Douglas and McSally).

More stunning still: the fact that the state's most populous county is the one place that McSally must win if she wants to hang onto that Senate seat yet she has done nothing to appeal to the independents and moderate Republican voters who likely will decide this race.

"Maricopa County is the key for Republicans winning," Noble said. "It's the key to Trump’s re-election but it’s also key for the Senate seat. Maricopa County is where the battle is at and right now it’s not going well for McSally."

I’ve never understood McSally’s strategy-- why she decided to become a Donald Trump pocket pal when it was obvious she lost in 2018 because she campaigned as a Donald Trump pocket pal.

Now she’s facing a campaign that will be solely a referendum on Trump.

Of course, the four-point drop in McSally’s numbers over the last month could be attributable to the campaign ads that are pummeling her.





The Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump conservative super PAC run in part by George Conway, began running attack ads against McSally two days before this poll went into the field. Democratic groups have been beating her up on the airwaves since last fall.

Whose approval rating, by the way, now stands at 45% in Arizona, according to the poll.

Republicans, meanwhile, have been mostly silent on the campaign front. The Senate Leadership Fund, run by allies of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, plans to spend $9.2  million to try to boost McSally but not until the fall.

Meanwhile, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, faced with possible loss of the Senate, recently pushed the panic button, announcing plans to move ahead in June with a $5.7 million ad campaign to try to save the appointed senator who now trails by double digits.

Me? I'm wondering what took them so long.

Pathetic Trumpist Hack Martha McSally Is Having A Hard Time Taking On Mark Kelly-- So She Is Ginning Up A War Against The Media Instead

The Arizona Senate race is going to be one of the hottest of 2020, but it isn't one that DWT, let alone Blue America, has been active in. Like the Arizona Senate race last cycle, there's just no good choice, just two bad ones. Last time, the theory was that Arizona Democrats needed a Republican-like candidate to win a red seat. And that was confirmed when wretched Blue Dog Kyrsten Sinema, then the single worst Democrat in the House, won the open red state seat. Today, Sinema is the single worst Democrat in the Senate, with a voting record to the right of Joe Manchin's. But that didn't stop Schumer-- it encouraged him-- from clearing the field for former Republican Mark Kelly to run against appointed Senator and cowardly Trumpist Martha McSally... the very same flawed candidate Sinema beat in 2018. McSally had once pretended to be a "moderate." Today she's an all-in Trumpist fanatic. When people call on Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Cory Gardner, Lamar Alexander, even Rand Paul and Mike Lee to consider the idea of a fair trial in the Senate, no one ever wastes their breath mentioning Martha McSally, just another sickening version of Marsha Blackburn. But Arizona isn't Tennessee and what works there, may backfire in a demographically changing Arizona.

From the perspective of the DC horse race game, Kelly is a great idea and will likely beat McSally and give Arizona two Democratic senators, something no one would have bet on in the last half century. Two Democrats-- but not Democrats from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Better than McSally? Sure. More harmful to the party than McSally? Yep. Arizona voters, especially young ones, are going to be very hard pressed to understand the difference between the two parties with Sinema and Kelly as their two highest-ranking elected officials.

McSally is getting desperate. She lost to Sinema-- a less popular candidate than Kelly-- 1,191,100 (50.0%) to 1,135,200 (47.6%). She lost her own congressional district (Tucson) and she lost Maricopa County (Phoenix). Both-- and therefor the state-- are trending away from Republicans. She's knows she's going to do even worse against Kelly than she did against Sinema. Last time Sinema outraised her slightly-- $22,197,141 to $21,618,743 with outside spending favoring Sinema. Outside spending also favored Sinema-- $33,915,055 to "just" $28,749,237 for McSally. This cycle, despite the advantages of an incumbent, Kelly is already outraising her-- and by a lot. In a report from KTAR, Kevin Stone revealed that "the challenger outraised the first-term Republican by more than $2 million in the fourth quarter and has amassed a far larger war chest. Kelly’s campaign on Tuesday touted a 2019 fourth quarter total of over $6.2 million, more than 50% higher than McSally’s announced total of around $4 million... The Q4 totals track with the yearly numbers in the race, with Kelly taking in around $20.2 million in 2019 to McSally’s $12 million, according to the campaigns."

Desperation is one ways to account for McSally's purposefully and aggressively nasty, boorish and probably racist behavior towards respected CNN reporter Manu Raju Thursday.

Raju: "Sen. McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial?"

McSally: "Manu, you’re a liberal hack. I’m not talking to you."

Raju: "You're not going to comment?"

McSally: "You’re a liberal hack, buddy."

McSally immediately posted the video her staffer shot on her official twitter page. Simultaneously, she unveiled her new website, "Liberalhack.com," apparently eager to use her time in her Senate office illegally campaigning rather than going over the hundreds of pages of Lev Parnas evidence Raju was asking her about. She quickly sent out a fundraising e-mail bragging about how she owned the liberal media, a popular refrain among the Trump-loving hate-filled, right-wing masses. I'm not saying she personally designed the ugly t-shirt herself, but she was hawking them on her site before Raju had left the Capitol! ($35 for anyone who would contribute to her campaign.)

She then booked herself s slot on Laura Ingraham's Republican Party propaganda show to discuss the latest developments in her war against the media. Chuck Todd noted how quickly she was raising money from the interaction-- "so quickly, in fact, that it seemed planned?"

So, yes, there's more to it than just McSally's desperation. In an unrelated post on Thursday, we saw Trump uses the media for his own ends-- and how Democratic politicians are unable or unwilling to do the same. Peter Hamby noted in an essay for Vanity Fair that manipulating low-info voters is how Republicans have overtaken Democrats in certain demographics ow consistently voting against their own interests. "Trump," wrote Hamby, "despite his deep personal insecurities and lust for elite validation... has derived much of his political success by ignoring Washington finger-waggers and connecting with the more primal instincts of his supporters, in whatever televised or digital corner of the media he can, with or without the good graces of the national press and savvy insiders. Trump stumbled into understanding something crucial about the electorate, which is this: There are plenty of divisions in our conventional wisdom-- insider versus outsider, progressive versus moderate, young versus old-- but one of the biggest splits in American politics is simply between those who follow politics closely and those who do not." Is McSally as bad as Trump? She's trying. Martha McSally, like Trump, is trying, as Greg Sargent noted in a different context, to create and exploit "a fog machine of disinformation and incoherence." There isn't much more politicians with anti-worker/anti-family platforms like hers can do.

The next day we looked at a related essay by Sean Illing forVox about flooding the zone with shit to confuse these same low-info voters, utterly overwhelming the capacity for Trump's low-info supporters to be able to discern what's real and what isn't. Illing wrote that 'Regardless of how clear a case Democrats make, it seems likely that a majority of voters will remain confused and unsure about the details of Trump’s transgressions. No single version of the truth will be accepted. This is a serious problem for our democratic culture. No amount of evidence, on virtually any topic, is likely to move public opinion one way or the other. We can attribute some of this to rank partisanship-- some people simply refuse to acknowledge inconvenient facts about their own side... We live in a media ecosystem that overwhelms people with information.'" McSally may be relatively new to that world, but she's taken to it like an old pro. All authoritarian politicians move rapidly to shutting down alternative sources of information. McSally gets it.

Will Their Opposition To Healthcare Kill The GOP November 6th?

One of the funniest moments in the election debate this cycle-- at least for me-- came when Arizona congresswoman, Martha McSally, a garden variety Trump rubber-stamp who had voted to repeal protections for pre-existing conditions several times, was cornered by a reporter asking her to square her consistent record against healthcare with her promise now-- as she runs for U.S. Senate-- to protect people with pre-existing conditions from the greed of insurance companies. After lying for a few minutes to a reporter who kept pointing out her votes, she finally said something to the effect of "Can't you ask me about something voters are interested in, like the Caravan?" True, Fox News and hate talk radio hosts are interested in the Caravan... but voters? Not so much. They're more interested in Republicans trying to take away their healthcare.

In TX-10, Mike Siegel is campaign for Congress on a platform that includes Medicare for All. His opponent, Michael McCaul is a Trump enabler who has voted to destroy Medicare and to strip away protections for pre-existing conditions. "I have friends and family who would not be alive, and would not have healthcare, but for the Affordable Care Act's protections for pre-existing conditions," Mike told us. "My cousin received a liver transplant that his private insurance refused to pay for, thanks to the ACA. My opponent Michael McCaul voted repeatedly to repeal the ACA without having any replacement in place. The differences between us could not be more stark, and the choice for voters is clear." This is the ad Mike has been running on social media in his district:



In Omaha, progressive Democrat Kara Eastman has had to confront this bullshit head-on, as her opponent, anti-healthcare fanatic and desperate, compulsive liar Don Bacon (R-NE), has tried to pose as a protector of preexisting conditions-- even though he voted against protecting them every single time he could. "My opponent," she told us, "voted 'Hell Yes' for the AHCA. He claims this would have protected people with pre-existing conditions. However, the Washington Post gave this claim 3 PINOCCHIOS as the law would have allowed states the option to seek waivers that would nullify this promise."



The new Ipsos poll released by Reuters yesterday shows that 58% of likely voters want to keep ObamaCare in place and "eight in 10 likely voters from each major party want to protect coverage for people with existing conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes or cancer." I wonder how long before Trump and his sycophants start claiming they support it too. And have always supported it.

With the Nov. 6 elections looming, Democrats are reminding voters of Republicans’ often-repeated promises to repeal the 2010 law. Many Republican candidates are softening their tone or removing website references decrying what they long derided as “Obamacare,” according to candidates, analysts and healthcare experts in both parties.

As Democrats seek to take control of Congress, they see Republicans as having a particularly weak spot on healthcare. Sixty-seven of the 73 most vulnerable Republican incumbents in the House of Representatives voted at least once to eliminate the ACA and its protections for pre-existing conditions, according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund.



Some of those votes date back to the Obama administration, though his successor, Republican President Donald Trump, also campaigned on a promise to undo the law. A repeal attempt after Trump took office last year failed.

Opinion polls show Democrats as having a chance to achieve the net gain of 23 seats they would need to take a majority in the House, but facing a longer shot at picking up the two seats they need to take control of the Senate.

Democratic activists said the repeated Republican attempts to repeal the ACA provide a powerful tool to motivate voters.

“Healthcare has an ability to move people into action,” said Ben Wikler, Washington director of liberal activist group MoveOn. “It is turning people out in town hall meetings ... getting people to make hundreds of thousands of phone calls and getting voters to the polls.”

One sign of Democratic focus: 54.5 percent of Democrats’ federal election ads from Sept. 18 to Oct. 15 mentioned healthcare, far more than the 8.7 percent that did so at the same time in 2010, according to the Wesleyan Media Project.

Some 33.9 percent of Republican federal election ads mentioned healthcare during this period and 31.5 percent in 2010. Republicans took control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections, boosted in part by opposition to the ACA, which had become law earlier that year.

While the aim of the ACA was to expand healthcare insurance to reach millions of Americans who did not have any coverage, Republicans campaigned for years against it as government overreach, especially its requirement that people buy health insurance or pay a financial penalty.

U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill has made healthcare the focus of her campaign in Missouri against Republican challenger Josh Hawley. The state’s attorney general, Hawley has faced criticism from individuals and healthcare groups for saying he supports covering pre-existing conditions even after suing to end the ACA.

“Everyone is feeling anxious and worried about the future of healthcare,” McCaskill said in a telephone interview. “It’s beginning to dawn on people that the Republicans didn’t have a replacement (for the ACA), and that they have no ideas on how they could do it better.”

Hawley ran for state attorney general by emphasizing his role in a lawsuit against the ACA that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and also worked on a team that successfully challenged the ACA’s requirement to provide contraceptives coverage.

Despite Republican opposition, eight years after its passage many Americans have seen some benefits from the law.

“By the time Republicans last year tried to repeal the law, it had become real, people had benefited,” said Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care. He said at least 20 Republican incumbents have “scrubbed” their websites to appear more supportive of the law.

In Kentucky, Representative Andy Barr has called his vote to repeal the ACA “a great day for freedom in America” but now plays up his support of programs to prevent and treat opioid addiction. In Maine, Representative Bruce Poliquin dropped a promise to “end Obamacare” and now talks about protecting hospitals.



Ted Cruz, a U.S. senator from Texas, said during a debate this month against Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke that he would protect pre-existing illnesses, despite having once forced a shutdown of the federal government over ACA repeal efforts.

In a hotly contested upstate New York congressional race, Democratic challenger Antonio Delgado has hammered his opponent, first-term Republican John Faso, over his vote to repeal the ACA.

“John Faso, despite voting to take away protections, is running TV ads saying the exact opposite,” he said during a recent town hall meeting. “How can you look someone in the face and say, ‘No, I didn’t do that.’ After a while, you’re just lying to our faces blatantly. This is too real to lie about.”

Faso defended his vote in an interview, saying New York state law already ensures patients with pre-existing conditions are protected, regardless of federal legislation.

Despite support for specific elements of the law, 52 percent of likely voters told Reuters/Ipsos they view the U.S. healthcare system as “poor” or “terrible.”

I Guess "Trump Blunders In Arizona" Isn't Much Of A Headline

But he did-- in the Arizona Senate race. Polling consistently shows that quasi-Democrat Kyrsten Sinema would beat any of the Republican Senate candidates. As you see from the graphic below, the only Republican who even gets close to Sinema in a head-to-head match-up is the one mainstream candidate, Martha McSally. McSally is also the choice of the NRSC and the DC and Phoenix establishments. They feel strongly nominating her is the only chance they have to hold onto the seat.

McConnell and NRSC chair, Cory Gardner (R-CO), have been begging Trump to endorse McSally. So far he hasn't. His base prefers the two extremist crackpots in the race, Kelli Ward or Joe Arpaio. All 3 candidates pretend that they have Trump's endorsement. Trump hasn't endorsed but he's said nice things about each one that each one is exploiting. Alex Isenstadt reported in Politico that Trumpanzee' refusal to explicitly endorse any of them for the August 28 primary "has led to a total muddle, prolonging the GOP slugfest in one of the most important Senate races in the country and allowing the presumed Democratic nominee, Kyrsten Sinema, to get a free pass... [E]stablishment Republicans have grown increasingly anxious that they’re squandering a critical window of time to define Sinema, who faces a nominal primary opponent. She’s spent millions of dollars running positive TV ads to boost her image and set the terms of the general election, while no Republican groups have countered."

The keys to controlling the Senate next year rests with Republican-held Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Tennessee and Democratic-held North Dakota and Florida.

People close to the president say not to expect any firm endorsement in the contest.

“President Trump has not endorsed anyone in the GOP Senate primary in Arizona and any photos or other general expressions of support shouldn’t be read as such,” said someone familiar with the operations of the Trump campaign. “He likes all of the candidates in the race very much and looks forward to supporting our nominee in the fall campaign to replace Jeff Flake in the Senate.”

Two senior Republicans in the state say they expect Trump to hold a post-primary "unity" rally, though the White House hasn’t yet announced any plans for an Arizona trip.

In a statement to Politico, Arpaio said he was not bothered by the efforts by Republican leaders to secure a Trump endorsement for McSally.

“At this time my only comment is my relationship with the President speaks for itself. It is no secret that Mitch McConnell and the Establishment do not want me in the US Senate,” he said.

Ward, in an interview in Washington last month, said much the same.

“I know that the Mitch McConnell faction and the establishment pushes [McSally] out as much as they can because that's their insider advantage that I don't have,” she said.

While Republicans continue to slug it out, Sinema’s campaign has run free on the airwaves. She’s spent more than $4 million on TV, running six different ads on health care, her work with veterans and her “record of independence.” Her first ad, launched in April, featured her brother, who is a veteran and police officer.

One-third of Arizona voters don’t identify with either party, and Sinema’s ads have been aimed squarely at those voters-- none of them mention the word “Trump” or “Democrat.” The ad campaign has been so sustained that going "negative against her is going to be extremely difficult,” said veteran Arizona Democratic strategist Andy Barr.

Travis Smith, a consultant for McSally’s campaign, brushed aside concern about Sinema owning the airwaves all summer. He said internal polling between April and July showed only a small uptick in Sinema’s favorability rating, while her negative ratings also rose by a slightly higher amount.

National Democrats haven’t had to spend to boost Sinema. Instead, a super PAC, Red and Gold, which was formed this month and hasn’t filed any information on its donors, has spent $1.6 million airing anti-McSally ads.

Defend Arizona, a pro-McSally super PAC, launched an ad Wednesday pushing back on the Democratic primary meddling. The group has also been running multiple attack ads against Ward.

“We are focused first on the primary,” said Barrett Marson, a spokesman for Defend Arizona, "and then we will focus on Kyrsten Sinema's liberal record.”

Sinema's liberal record? The chair of the Blue Dogs, Sinema has the least  liberal, most conservative voting record of any Democrat in Congress. And she's a total, corrupt Wall Street pawn. ProgressivePunch rates her record "F" which is especially heinous because she's in a strong, safe Democratic district. Her lifetime voting record is 36.17, the lowest of any Democrat in the House. This cycle, her record is even worse, with a 34.35 score, further right than the voting records of 3 Republicans-- Walter Jones (R-NC), Justin Amash (R-MI) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA). It's worth noting that Trump did poorly in her district-- just 38.4%-- while winning Amash's district with 51.6% and Jones' district with 60.5%. Fitzpatrick's newly redrawn Pennsylvania district was very close: Hillary 49.1% and Trumpanzee 47.1%. But in the district as it was drawn at the time, Trump won, albeit narrowly. Sinema has one of the most pro-Trump scores of any Democrat on FiveThirtyEight's Trump Affinity Scale. Based on the district itself, Sinema would be predicted to back Trump 35.3% of the time. Instead she's backed him 60.9%. The only Democrat who votes more frequently with Trump is Henry Cuellar (68.9%), a conservative Texas Republican who, inexplicably, calls himself a Democrat.

GOP Establishment Thinks Their Own Arizona Base In Too Crazy To Be Trusted In Primaries-- Begs Trump To Calm Them Down

Martha McSally is widely considered a sane, mainstream Republican, especially in comparison with her two rivals for the Republican Senate nomination to replace Jeff Flake. Of course, compared to those two-- Kelli Ward and Joe Arpaio-- even Sarah Palin and Nero would be considered sane people... by some. But don't be fooled; Martha McSally is a Trump enabling rubber-stamp. Just look at her record, 97.8, on the Trump affinity tracker. FiveThirtyEight projects a score of 57.6 for someone representing AZ-02. Her 40.2 is the difference between McSally's actual and predicted Trump-support scores. She's right up there in the top dozen out of all 365 members of Congress. That's not exactly mainstream. In fact, that defines serious congressional Trump enablement.

So she's running for the Senate now and the Republican Party establishment-- both in DC and in Phoenix-- is petrified she'll lose the primary to one of the two crazies, Ward or Arpaio, either of whom would probably lose the general to GOP-lite Kyrsten Sinema, Schumer's hand-picked candidate. Actually, the latest Emerson poll shows Sinema beating any of the three, but shows McSally doing less horribly than Ward or Arpaio.

Yesterday, Alex Isenstadt, writing for Politico, reported that NRSC chairman Cory Gardner (R-CO) called Señor Trumpanzee and asked him to endorse McSally, even though the two crackpots are his natural allies and cronies and have more-- much more-- in common with him politically. Gardner and his staff (and, presumably, Miss McConnell are afraid that Arizona's right-wing voters (i.e., Republicans) will nominate one of the two unelectable candidates and cede the seat to Sinema in November. Now only Super-Trump can save the day (at least in the primary. In the general, if McSally is the nominee, he'll have to avoid Arizona like the plague). According to Isenstadt's sources Señor T "was non-committal and did not say yes or no to the request."

In an interview in May, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made clear that McSally would run strongest against Sinema, though he said he was unsure if the party would need to intervene on her behalf in the primary.

“It’s pretty obvious which of our candidates have a best chance of winning,” he said.

If Arpaio or Ward wins the primary, it would also put GOP senators in the difficult position of choosing whether to endorse those candidates. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), for example, said Arizona is one of the few places she might campaign this fall for Republicans because she won’t campaign against colleagues.

“I will go campaign in states where there are open seats, like Arizona,” she said in an interview last week. Asked about Ward and Arpaio, she replied: “Let me rephrase that. I would campaign for Martha McSally."

While Republicans are eager for Trump to intervene, the president may be disinclined to do so. He has previously lavished praise on Ward, and he pardoned Arpaio of criminal contempt, who shares his hardline immigration views. Both candidates are closely aligning themselves with the president, though Arpaio is trailing badly and the White House is uncomfortable with Ward promoting a photo of her alongside the president as an implied endorsement, according to the Arizona Republic.

McSally is the frontrunner in the primary, yet she faces obstacles. A pro-Ward super PAC, Kelli PAC, has been airing ads calling McSally “one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress.”

Ward’s super PAC has been financed by Republican mega-donor Robert Mercer, himself a Trump ally who has given the group $800,000. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) beat Ward in the 2016 primary by 11 percentage points.

At the same time, Democrats are attempting to meddle in the Republican primary and sink McSally. Red and Gold, a newly-formed Democratic group, has begun airing commercials assailing McSally for putting “Washington over Arizona.”

When The Parties Undermine Their Own Candidates

Tony Cárdenas had no problem winning his heavily Democratic San Fernado Valley reelection bid, despite credible accusations that he he sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl and threatened to fire her father if she squealed. Last month an L.A. Superior Court judge ruled that there is "a reasonable and meritorious basis" for the suit to go forward but Pelosi quashed it in Congress. He's definitely not getting the Al Franken treatment.

Cárdenas' district gave Trump a mere 16.8% of its vote in 2016 and the unassailable PVI is D+29. In the primary about 2 weeks ago, despite being a child molestor, Cárdenas scored 67% against Republican Benito Bernal (18%) and Democrat Joseph Shammas (8%). There wasn't a peep out of Pelosi or her DCCC. Funny, because when the decode to destroy a candidate, they certainly know how to do it. And not just Laura Moser.

In Orange County, the DCCC released all kinds of sex allegations against their own recruit, Hans Keirstead, who seems to have won the CA-48 race, leaving the DCCC in a really awkward position. And despite Archie Parnell handily winning his South Carolina primary, the DCCC is poisoning the atmosphere against him for allegations by his then-wife made in a 1973 divorce filing.

The DCCC communications director, Meredith Kelly, who also led the charge against other Democrats the DCCC has trying to destroy told the media that "What Archie Parnell did is inexcusable and deeply disturbing, and he should drop out of this race immediately." So what Parnell is accused of doing to his wife in 1973 is "inexcusable" but Cárdenas raping a 16 year old child is... crickets. The whole DCCC crowd has ganged up on Parnell and keeps demanding he drop out of the race, reaffirming that they will not spend any money in SC-05-- the Charlotte exurbs plus Lancaster, York and Cherokee counties-- where he came close to beating Ralph Norman in a special election when Mick Mulvaney resigned in 2017.

• Ralph Norman (R)- 45,076 (51%)
• Archie Parnell (D)- 42,341 (47.9%)

Norman outspent Parnell $1,630,143 to $1,379,838. But his case isn't the only one where the establishment is trying to destroy politically. In fact, the Republicans so the exact same thing... and as bad or worse than the Democrats. (Surprise, surprise, both parties really suck.)

Last week James Arkin blew the whistle on McConnell for this newest interference-- the Arizona Senate contest. The Democratic establishment has chosen the worst-- literally, the worst Democrat in the House, Kyrsten Sinema, as the nominee. McConnell wants to do the same thing for the GOP-- and he wants it to be the mainstream conservative, Rep. Martha McSally, rather than one of the neo-fascists, Kelli Ward or Joe Arpaio.

The McConnell-controlled Pac, One Nation, is already run ads claiming that McSally is far more right-wing and extreme than her record indicates. "The ads," wrote Arkin, "from the McConnell-aligned nonprofit One Nation, don’t explicitly reference the Senate race. But they quote McSally saying, 'We’ve got to build the wall,' just as the two-term Republican has been tacking to the right on immigration. She recently pulled her support from legislation that would have offered a pathway to citizenship for young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally, instead backing a more conservative immigration bill, and McSally’s office also recently took down a video from last year that featured her defending DACA, the Obama-era program that protected young undocumented immigrants from deportation." Keep in mind that McConnell is the most disliked politician in America.

The TV ad marks the first move by a national group in Arizona’s Senate race, emphasizing the high stakes there as Republicans defend their 51-49 Senate majority. Democrats are confident in Rep. Kyrsten Sinema’s chances to flip the seat held by GOP Sen. Jeff Flake, who is retiring. McConnell has made clear his preference for McSally in the primary, and national Republicans fear the race will be unwinnable if former state legislator Kelli Ward or former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio wins the nomination in late August.

Still, McConnell’s involvement comes with its own risks. The majority leader is a controversial figure among GOP primary voters, and that unpopularity was weaponized against McConnell’s chosen candidate in Alabama’s special election last year, when pro-McConnell groups spent heavily to back former Sen. Luther Strange before he lost his primary. In Arizona, Ward has already attacked the Republican establishment for interfering in the race.

"The establishment and Never Trump forces know they have to prop up Martha McSally because her support is stalling with primary voters,” Zach Henry, a spokesman for Ward, wrote in an email. “McSally's record of personal attacks on President Trump, opposing the border wall, and her dozens of votes for amnesty and reckless Washington spending doesn't appeal to Arizonans."

McSally has faced criticism from both sides for her immigration positions, with Democrats criticizing her conservative shift since announcing her Senate campaign. But the Republican primary is the first hurdle for McSally, who has been labeled “McAmnesty” by Ward’s campaign.

"Martha began working on Securing America's Future Act last September-- long before a Senate run was even a consideration," said Torunn Sinclair, a spokeswoman for McSally's campaign. "This is political posturing coming from Democrats who are grasping at straws trying to poke holes in Martha's effective record fighting for Arizonans."

Eric Beach, a strategist for Ward, told Politico in May that Ward’s campaign would not simply be a referendum on McConnell. But the majority leader has played a role in the primary: A day after that article appeared, Ward wrote in a fundraising appeal that she was “the No. 1 target” of McConnell and that he had “thrown his weight” behind McSally in the race.

In another fundraising appeal late last month, Ward labeled McConnell a “major supporter” of McSally and compared that to endorsements she had received from conservative figures Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Sebastian Gorka.

Steven Law, president of One Nation and its affiliated super PAC Senate Leadership Fund, said in an interview earlier this week he thought McSally is well-positioned to win the primary. He didn’t discuss his group’s plans to invest in the race, saying that was something “everyone is still evaluating.” But he praised McSally’s fundraising ability and said she’s “well-positioned to be able to win this in her own right.”

...Law wrote in a memo that in most GOP primaries, the relative strength of the candidate and their political operation are critical variables. In the interview this week, Law said he’s confident in McSally.

“The record-to-record comparison between her and her two competitors in the primary, I think, will be a deal closer for Republican primary voters,” he said.

DCCC Loses One Of Their Candidates Already

Erin Cole, the DCCC choice to run against western New York state Trumpist, Chris Collins, withdrew from the race Monday. The DCCC flavor of the cycle is women army veterans, which Cole was, so Ben Ray Lujan and his DC crew of imbeciles probably need a hug this week. NY-27 is a hellish district stretching from the suburbs east of Buffalo to the suburbs west and south of Rochester. Last year the PVI was R+8 (easily the worst in the state)and it's even worse this year-- R+11!). Obama lost both times and last year Señor Trumpanzee beat Hillary 59.7% to 35.2%, the only district in the state where she failed to break 40%.

Collins' Democratic opponent last year, Diana Kastenbaum, was ignored by the DCCC and only managed 107,832 votes (32.8%) against Collins' 220,885 (67.2%). He spent $582,459 and she didn't raise the $5,000 that would have required an FEC report. Cole was the only declared candidate this cycle.

Cole didn't return a phone call seeking comment. Other Democratic sources said was she frustrated with fundraising and other challenges that often trouble first-time political candidates.

"What I'm gathering is that jumping in the deep end can be difficult for first-time candidates, and she just concluded that the race was not for her," said Judith Hunter, the Livingston County Democratic chair who also chairs  Turn 27 Blue, a coalition of county Democratic leaders and progressive activists who've come together to try to defeat Collins, a Clarence Republican.

...While Cole's departure from the race might surprise those outside Democratic circles, she was by no means guaranteed to get the party's nomination to challenge Collins.

East Aurora resident Sean Bunny, an Erie County assistant district attorney, is also considering a race against Collins, as are other Democrats, said Erie County Democratic Chairman Jeremy Zellner.

"We've always believed there would be multiple candidates taking the temperature of the electorate out there," Zellner said.

A political operative who has worked in the district frequently told me that the DCCC (and EMILY's List) puts unrealistic fundraising goals on candidates and then constantly beats up candidates to reach them, leaving them virtually no time for messaging or any kind of grassroots campaign. "The DCCC has been a mess for a decade but it's gotten much worse with the really weak and chairman Pelosi put in for last cycle and this. He's a boob and lets a pretty lame staff run the show... [Most] candidates hate them with a passion... Cole is probably celebrating getting away from them." He suggested I take a look at a race right across the country-- in Tucson, Arizona, where the DCCC has recruited a very conservative carpetbagger, New Dem Ann Kirkpatrick, who is making a mess of a very winnable race. "She's a waste of time but they moved her down south and the Democrats in the area are laughing at her and at them."

He told me about the AZ-02 Democratic candidates forum in Sierra Vista at Cochise College in the reddest part of the district, Cochise county on the Mexican border. Kirkpatrick opened her remarks by thanking "Coconino Community College" for hosting the event. Coconino County (Flagstaff) is where she lived until a few weeks ago when the DCCC moved her down to Tucson to run against Martha McSally. It was the first forum in her new district and her idiotic flub occurred within 30 seconds of her opening her mouth. One of the other candidates should start bringing a map of the district to future debates/forums in case she requires a reference.

"Two of the other Dems on the stage, Mary and Bruce," he told me, "swiveled their heads around so fast they could have incurred whiplash injuries! The Cochise College students said it all... they seemed really upset... The internal polling I've seen from one of the campaigns has Matt Heinz leading her in the primary anyway. People see her as an interloper from outside sent by the DCCC which hasn't helped them in the past... Democrats polled were not happy that she opposed the Assault weapons ban and that she ducked the vote on Dream Act in 2010 and wouldn't publicly oppose SB1070. And that don't like that she opposed EPA clean energy standards, always sides with Wall Street in opposing consumer financial protections and supports destruction of sacred tribal land to benefit foreign mining interests. She'll lose but the DCCC will pour resources into her anyway; it's what they do."

"The DCCC," he said, "kept pestering Cole to raise $350,000 each quarter and that's next to impossible for a Democrat in that district unless you want to flat out sell yourself to Wall Street, which is exactly what party leaders expect 'their' candidates to do-- and willingly, with a smile on their faces. Kirkpatrick is comfortable doing they. It's what she's done for her whole career. But it doesn't endear candidates to the base. She was bitter because even if she raised the $350,000 she said the DCCC wouldn't guarantee her any financial support anyway."

The Truth About The Trumpanzee Tax Plans

Former CNN Chief Business Correspondent Ali Velshi, now an MSNBC anchor, is not an idiot... but... On his morning show yesterday the Hairless Prophet of Doom introduced a question to Jared Bernstein, once a professor at Columbia and then Vice President Biden's Chief Economic Adviser, by claiming that Trump's plan to eliminate the estate tax would help the middle class. Before Bernstein got to whatever Velshi's question was, he addressed the GOP talking point Velshi had just slipped onto the air so matter-of-factly. The estate tax only impacts .02% of the richest Americans. ZERO is paid, he said, by any estate worth under $11 million. Velshi pushed back with another Republican Party myth: "but the family farms..." Bernstein cited the NY Times exhaustive search for a family farm, GOP congressmen are always whining about, that has been impacted by the estate tax. That found exactly none-- not one.

Trump's largely nonexistent tax proposal is entirely based on a tissue of outright lies. At a meeting with lawmakers from both parties in the Cabinet Room this week, Señor Trumpanzee insisted that the so-called Tax reform plan his Regime is still trying to draft "will not lower the amount of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans." Fox News pushed his lies:



Trumpanzee claims the amount of taxes-- even his own-- could even go up. "The rich," he bullshitted, "will not be gaining at all with this plan. We are looking for the middle class and we are looking for jobs-- jobs being the economy. So we're looking at middle class and we're looking at jobs. I think the wealthy will be pretty much where they are, pretty much where they are... If they have to go higher, they'll go higher." Tucson-based GOP mental midget Martha McSally (video up top) bought right into it. She's so fucking stupid-- a Republican version of Blue Dog Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey. Americans For Tax Fairness are not as gullible as McSally. They pointed out that Trump's nonsense might be music to the ears of Congress' most foolish members (the so-called "Problem Solvers Caucus") but that doesn't make any of it real or true.

Frank Clemente, Executive Director, Americans for Tax Fairness, replied without mincing words: "That's a lie. Trump's current tax plan will overwhelmingly benefit millionaires, billionaires, and large corporations, at the expense of everyone else. The top 1% will get half of his proposed tax cuts-- $175,000 each on average. Trump plans to pay for his massive tax giveaway with budget cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, public education and other priorities for the middle class. He even plans to cut $667 million from FEMA next year. Unbelievable."

Here are the facts about Trump's tax plan as outlined in April 2017:

• Half of the tax cuts in Trump's plan will go to the top 1% (those making more than $732,900).
• The average tax cut for the top 1% will be $175,000.
• The average tax cut for a family making between $25,000 and $48,600 will be $210.
• A quarter of all families making between $48,600 to $86,100 will actually see their taxes INCREASE.

On top of that, these tax cuts for millionaires will be paid for by Trump's budget cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, public education, and many other priorities for working families and the middle class-- including FEMA and other disaster recovery agencies.

A few other things to note:

• Trump's tax cuts will not create jobs.
• Trump's tax cuts will not trickle down to workers.
• Trump's tax cuts will not benefit small businesses.

Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) have offered a viable alternative to the Trump Regime's bullshit plan to make the rich richer. On Wednesday they introduced a bill that would give low-income and working-class taxpayers a big tax credit, dramatically expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, which Republicans would like to abolish altogether. The EITC helps people at the bottom end of the salary range. Low-income taxpayers without dependent children would see their credit rise from a maximum of $510 to $3,000, and families would see their maximum rise from $6,318 to $12,131, depending on their income and number of children. Economists say the increased credit would help compensate for the fact that working class salaries have stagnated in recent decades even as the U.S. economy has continued to grow.

Khanna knows Paul Ryan will never allow his plan to even get a vote in Congress while he's Speaker, but he's hoping Democrats will incorporate it into their own vision of ameliorating massive and increasing wealth inequality in this country. He said he's hopeful that his plan "is going to be our party’s answer to Donald Trump on taxes. While he’s proposing tax cuts for the investor class, we’re proposing support for the working and middle class. He is counting on a separate financial transaction tax and taxes on the highest-earning incomes to pay for it. The San Jose Mercury News reported that "Experts say the Trump plan would give the largest benefits to corporations and individuals with high incomes. The Brown-Khanna plan, on the other hand, would increase credits for families making up to about $75,000 and individuals without children making up to about $37,500."

Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit would do more to help working-class Trump voters than tax cuts for the wealthy, argued Chuck Marr, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “If you were to take seriously the people he was talking about in the campaign-- rust belt workers, truck drivers, cooks in restaurants, people who clean offices-- this is what you would do,” Marr said.

The credit was first introduced in 1975 as a way to incentivize low-income people to get work and stay off of welfare. It has been expanded over the years, and most economists, both liberal and conservative, see the credit as a successful policy to boost low wages.

...Khanna said his proposal is already getting support from prominent Democrats. He said he’s heard from potential Democratic presidential candidates interested in backing the bill, including senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Cory Booker (D-NJ). Rep. John Delaney (New Dem-MD), who is the first declared 2020 presidential candidate from the party, will be a co-sponsor.

The Brown-Khanna plan would boost wages for full-time and part-time workers alike, which Khanna said made sense for an economy of more Uber drivers and other workers with uncertain incomes. It would also let taxpayers request a credit in the middle of the year instead of waiting to receive their refund check, in order to help them pay for large, unexpected expenses.

The plan could fit in with the Democratic party’s larger economic message, which has focused on increasing wages. “The question is how are you going to do that. Democrats need to have an answer, and this is an answer,” Khanna said. “People say, ‘don’t just be against Donald Trump, tell us what’re you for.’ This is what we can be for.”

Even a few extra hundred dollars in the tax credit would go a long way for low-income people in the Bay Area, said Marie Bernard, the executive director of Sunnyvale Community Services, a financial aid organization that helps residents of Santa Clara County. Some of Bernard’s clients count the days until their EITC check arrives in April, and find their tax credit to be the difference between paying rent and being evicted.

“There are so few resources for smaller families and single people,” she said. “This will go straight to keeping them housed and fed.”

Hillary Back On The Campaign Trail?

This morning I mentioned in passing that candidates have been clamoring for visits to their districts from candidates with brands that voters admire-- Bernie, first and foremost, but also Elizabeth Warren in a major way and a small number of House members who have been prominent in Resistance against Trump, Ted Lieu, for example. But no one wants public events in their districts with congressional big shots like Pelosi, Hoyer, Crowley, Lujan or Wasserman Schultz... nor with Hillary Clinton. Right after I finished writing that, The Hill published a piece by Amie Parnes, Hillary Clinton looks for her role in midterms, asserting that some candidates would like to have Hillary doing events in their districts. Most of them are Republicans eager to motivate their own base. As for Democrats? Maybe some Blue Dogs and the Wall Street-owned and operated New Dems, but no real Democrats that I could find.

Of course, as always with Clinton, it's all about her, not anyone else. She wants to play a role but isn't sure what the role will be. She started a PAC-- sucking money out of the system-- that she claims she'll use for campaigns. Rake-offs and "expenses" from those kinds of vanity efforts are just short of being criminal. "She also is looking," wrote Parnes, "at the House districts she won in last year’s presidential contest against Donald Trump as part of an autopsy of her failed campaign, according to two sources who have spoken to the former Secretary of State." These are the districts:

We reached out to candidates-- some who have declared and some who haven't in almost all 23 districts. Very few wanted to talk about it on the record. Kia Hamadanchy, who's running for the CA-45 seat Mimi Walters is holding, was the first. "Orange County," he told me, "is the key to the next house majority for Democrats and unless we win all 4 of these seats we are going to continue to be in the minority. Hillary Clinton helped demonstrate that this is not the same old conservative Orange County that everyone thinks it is and whether its Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, or another national Democrat leader out here campaigning, the most important thing is that the national party continues to invest the attention and resources we need to win these seats."

Michael Hepburn is the progressive candidate contesting the Miami-Dade seat Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is giving up. It's the deep blue South Florida district Debbie Wasserman Schultz has help keep in Republican hands for over a decade-- and it's the GOP-held district Hillary won most overwhelmingly, clobbering Trump by nearly 20 points! Michael was happy to go on the record with this statement:

I personally do not have an issue with receiving support from Hillary Clinton after we win this Democratic nomination. I actually voted for Senator Sanders in the presidential primary-- since I felt that this country needed something different to push us forward and some of his policy perspectives closely resembled my point of view. However, I’m about people over politics and I wake up every day aspiring to inspire others to believe in their dreams and goals. So as long as she’s comfortable with knowing that I am running to be a champion for public education, healthcare, and economic justice for all-- I have no problems with receiving her support.

Across the board among candidates enthusiasm for Hillary coming into the districts in person was... muted. I didn't bring up Bernie or Elizabeth Warren to anyone but many of the candidates took the initiative of bringing one or both of them up-- and almost everyone said they would want Obama campaigning for them. One candidate in a district Hillary won narrowly said he hopes she "stays away and sends money... She's a lightning rod for negativity and she's yesterday's news... She won this district but an awful lot of people didn't vote for her as much as they voted against Trump. She was the lesser-of-two evils" in a lot of voters' minds. They did pick the lesser evil but no one in [deleted] wants to see her again anytime soon." One of the candidates in John Culberson's district told me, again, off-the-record, that "this is not a district where having Hillary here would help; unlike say Ileana's, where she won by double digits. She barely scraped by in this one!" Another Texas candidate was much harsher: "She'd muddle the message in a bad way. We're out here pushing a very clear message on climate, jobs, and health care. I don't know what she could add, given her slowness in coming our way on those issues. She will fire up a certain section of the base, sure, but no one has suggested in any precinct in any county that I try to bring her in."

Another candidate in a fiercely contested primary isn't interested in seeing her show up in his district and wouldn't invite her. "Totally off the record," he said, "I think it's probably a bad idea. Obama would be a different story as would Bernie. I just am not sure people have a stomach for relitigating 2016."

One of the top Orange County candidates told me, off the record that "she wouldn't be my first choice (I'd rather have Bernie or Obama). Hillary and the Clintons in general represent a different era and a different Democratic party, which I don't really identify with. She's also just generally been too hawkish and overly cautious for my taste. I also just have the sense that she's had her moment and as a party it's time for new faces a new generation of leadership. Now with all the said she did win this district and the 3 other OC ones and the only reason [the DCCC] is actually trying to contest these seats is for that reason. I don't think having her out here to campaign with me would hurt me in the way that having Trump out here campaign for [the GOP incumbent] would hurt them."

And two more off-the-record candidate comments: "I would prefer we move forward as a party and she just focus on fundraising. I am not sure she helps bring in any new voters. Those who like her are going to turn out anyways. My campaign is all about next generation leadership, which runs counter to how people feel about her."

And... "I really think she would do more harm than good but I think that should stay off record. You can quote me anonymously if you want but my take is that so many people voted for her in districts like mine not because they liked her but because it was between her and Trump and most rational people felt like she was the lesser of two evils. Next year it won't be about that and she has so much baggage attached to her that I personally think she should just stay out of it. She won't sway people towards me and there is a good chance she would push others away... especially people on the Bernie side or Republicans we are able to bring over."

Parnes:

Democrats are focused on the Golden State as they seek to win back the House majority.

[Wretchded, crooked Blue Dog] Ellen Tauscher-- a Clinton ally and former California congresswoman-- along with a longtime aide Katie Merrill, have started a super PAC focused on seven of the so-called “split districts” in that state that voted for Clinton but backed a Republican candidate for the House.

Democrats are still mapping out a game plan for 2018 along with a message for their rudderless party. But another Clinton confidant said part of the plan might be to have Clinton campaign for candidates in the places where she won.

“No one can argue that Clinton helping in those areas wouldn't be helpful,” the confidant said. “That is a priority for her.”

If Clinton hits the campaign trail, Republicans are ready to pounce. They say they would welcome Clinton's presence on the stump because it would help GOP candidates.

"For 30 years, Hillary Clinton has essentially been Old Faithful for Republican candidates," said Doug Heye, a Republican strategist. "Her continues prominence only helps GOP candidates with an electorate that historically is more favorable than what they faced in the last presidential election.

"The more Clinton weighs in and tries to tell voters "I'm baaaack," the more Republicans will tell her to keep on trucking," Heye continued.

Still, Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist, added that Clinton, “could have a real voice in these places, absolutely.”

“She can go into those districts and make a case that there is an opportunity to do a course correction and do it in a fairly compelling way,” Lehane said, particularly if Democrats strengthen their message and give voters a reason to vote for them.

In May, during a question and answer session at the Code Conference, an event focused on tech, media and politics, Clinton indicated her focus is on winning those House seats for her party.

“Everything will change if we win in 2018,” she said at the conference. “We have to flip 24 seats. I won 23 districts that have a Republican Congress member, seven of them are in California.

“If we can flip those, if we can go deeper into where I did well, where we can get good candidates, I think flipping the House is certainly realistic. It’s a goal that we can set for ourselves,” she continued.

Even staunch Clinton supporters say that while there is room for her to play a role, she also needs to leave room for new leaders to emerge.

Garry Mauro, a longtime friend of the Clintons who led Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign effort in Texas, thinks the House can be won with the help of the Longhorn state, where there are three “split” districts.

But he doesn’t want Clinton to be front and center.

“Would she be well received? Of course, she would be. But we’re not going to win these races because Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi comes to the state and campaigns,” Mauro said. “We’re going to win it because we represent new leadership and new ideas.

“I think Secretary Clinton has got to define her role in American politics and she can play a real role in helping the Democratic Party but…we need new leadership,” Mauro added. “She can play a heck of a role. She just can’t play the dominant role.”

Republicans have signaled they intend to link every Democrat running for the House next year to longtime Democratic leader and former Speaker Pelosi (Calif.), arguing a vote for the local Democrat would put Pelosi in charge.

It’s an argument many Democrats are wary of, as it was used successfully against Jon Ossoff-- the promising Democratic candidate who lost a special election in Georgia last month.

Merrill, who started “Fight Back California” together with Tauscher, said there is a role Clinton can play when it comes to driving turnout among Democrats and the ability to raise money for Democratic candidates.

“Midterm elections are notorious for low turn out and the ability to raise money-- those are the two places Democrats will have trouble in the midterms,” Merrill said, adding that Clinton could contribute by doing digital ads and social media outreach along with tapping into her vast Rolodex of donors.

But Merrill said the California races in particular are going to be “won on local issues” by talking to the voters about the records of the incumbents.

“I think it would be a mistake for any campaign to nationalize these elections,” she added. “It can’t be about Trump or the 2016 election. It’s gotta be about these local issues.”

Merrill said she expects Clinton to remain “an active part” of the Democratic Party.

“I imagine she’ll only continue that level of activity,” she said.

Let's look at the last district on the list, AZ-02, a quintessential swing district that includes most of Tucson, though not the Hispanic west and south sides. Obama narrowly missed winning both times he ran-- by about 1%-- and Trump lost to Hillary by almost 5 points, 49.6% to 44.7%. While Hillary was winning, Republican incumbent Martha McSally was beating Democrat Matt Heinz decisively, 179,806 (57%) to 135,873 (43%). McSally spent a massive $7,826,194 to Heniz's $1,576,119. Ryan's SuperPAC spent $662,677 bolstering McSally while Pelosi and the DCCC refused to spend a dime on Heinz, leaving him twisting in the hot sun. He's running again-- as are half a dozen other Democratic candidates-- Billy Kovacs, Will Foster, Jeff Latas, Mary Sally Matiella, Charlie Verdin and a right-wing corporate shill the DCCC is importing into the district, Ann Kirkpatrick, who has a long history of losing elections by trying to appeal to Republicans while alienating Democrats and progressive independents.

Heinz was willing to talk on the record. He told us that he's hearing from his "patients, my colleagues and many southern Arizona politicos that they are sick of the same cookie cutter career politicians spouting perfectly crafted poll-tested and focus-grouped talking points. That strategy has failed us-- most recently we saw that in GA-06 and SC-05. The money and DCCC went for Ossoff (a very talented man, btw) and totally neglected the genuine progressive Dem in SC-05 who came within 2700 votes of an amazing upset!

"We need candidates who are authentic and who have real connections to their communities. Most importantly we have to listen to the voters. That's the theme of my announcement video which you can see at heinzforarizona.com. When a hugely Republican district almost votes for a soft-spoken progressive tax attorney, that's because he was connecting with people and listening to their hopes and fears.

"I think we can learn a lot from these recent events and I know that in my own campaign I'm looking to my volunteers and precinct committee folks and everyday southern Arizonans for their input, not just a few expensive surveys. I'm also hearing every day from my patients about current events-- something I have never before experienced! People are very engaged and activated even now!

"As for Hillary helping out House candidates, that is very gracious of her to offer. We certainly don't agree on every issue. But I will say that she conceded without tipping the nation into civil unrest-- something that I believe she alone had the capacity to do, sadly. She also sent me a personal letter expressing how she was honored to share the ballot with me in 2016. It was an unexpectedly warm and personal gesture. I wish more people could have seen that side of her in the lead up to the Nov 8 election last year. It reminded me of VP Al Gore on SNL post the Nov 2000 election. He got into a hot tub and was absolutely hilarious! It was a funny and engaging more human side of him that we didn't see almost ever ahead of that fateful election.

"I believe that Hillary could be a very positive force in some of the districts she won substantially (south Florida, maybe Issa's seat in the San Diego area), especially with the buyer's remorse going on presently. That said, she remains a highly polarizing celebrity and some districts like mine are so evenly divided that such an endorsement could ultimately fuel turnout for my opponent who is suffering from very low approval (40%!!) because McSally could then start running ads against Hillary instead of me.

"For my part, I plan to stay focused on southern Arizona families. If elected, I will be tasked with making government work better for them. That is my passion and therefore will continue to be my highest priority and focus."

Right now, polling shows Heinz leading McSally 48-44%, but that will all go up in smoke if the DCCC brings in their losing candidate from across the state, Kirkpatrick, to shit all over the field and guarantee another term for McSally. It would be a classic DCCC/EMILY's List move, the exact kind of move that have turned so many grassroots Democrats against both organizations.