Rating The 2020 Presidential Candidates On Their Education Stands

We wrote a post on Saturday-- published Sunday-- Are Democrats Going To Finally Get Behind Public Education For Real-- And Leave Charter Schools To The Republicans? that needs some updating. The education forum in Pittsburgh that the Democratic presidential candidates took part in has led to a valuable evaluation published by ElectraBlog. Mitchell Robinson wrote that "In the spirit of our country’s current rather draconian approach to 'accountability' in public education," he would describe each of the candidates’ performances "by rating them on the Danielson teacher evaluation rubric, a common teacher evaluation system used by many school districts across the nation." Each candidate was "graded on a simplistic, reductionist, atomistic, 4-point scale of the sort loved by corporate education reformers, as though it makes sense to distill the entirety of an individual’s performance on a complicated set of tasks to a single number between 1 and 4:

Highly Effective = 4
Effective = 3
Developing = 2
Ineffective = 1

The short version: the two progressives in the room, Bernie and Elizabeth, scored best. Charter school shill Michael Bennet did worst, although another charter school shill, Cory Booker, backed out of the forum at the last minute. Steyer was also rated "ineffective." Here are the scores, from best to worst:

• Bernie- 4
• Elizabeth- 4
• Klobuchar- 3
• Status Quo Joe- 3
• Mayo Pete- 3 (with a terrible caveat)
• Bennet- 1

Robinson wrote that Bernie was "an obvious favorite with the teachers in the house, Sanders entered the stage to a hero’s welcome. He was his usual garrulous self, alternately grousing and charming. Rumpled and tousled, Sanders is in many ways the anti-politician, and is unique in American politics. And teachers love him... As expected, Sanders’ best moments have to do with economic and labor issues: canceling college debt, making public colleges tuition-free, eliminating right-to-work laws, and strengthening unions. His best education response was on his opposition to No Child Left Behind because of its reliance on standardized testing. Sanders may be the most consistent political leader in the field, if not our nation’s history, and nothing he said at the Public Education Forum changed that record. The teachers in the hall loved Bernie, and his support among the members of the profession remains strong... HIGHLY EFFECTIVE."

Elizabeth Warren did just as well and "received one of the two strongest and most enthusiastic receptions from the crowd of public school teachers, students, and union officials in the hall. She used her two-minute opening spiel to describe how she would pay for the ambitious agenda outlined in her education plan (a 2 cent tax on high wealth individuals; 3 cents for billionaires), promised to get rid of high stakes testing (loud applause), and a lot more very specific policy ideas... HIGHLY EFFECTIVE."

Robinson was taken by Klobuchar and called her "the surprise star of the forum." He wrote that he "knew going in that Sanders and Warren were good on education, but Klobuchar was every bit as well prepared, thorough in her understanding of the issues, and communicated with skill, clarity, and grace. Klobuchar’s first words to the audience were about making the firing of Betsy DeVos her first act as president-- an idea that the crowd embraced with obvious enthusiasm... EFFECTIVE."

Status Quo Joe did better than I would have imagined he could. Robinson: "In the span of about 5 minutes, Biden reversed course on two of the major planks of the Obama era’s education policy platform: support for charter schools and standardized testing. If true, and not merely another instance of Biden-esque verbal imprecision, these are major reversals that signal a return to traditional Democratic policy positions." Yes, if true indeed. Biden is a compulsive liar on a near Trumpian scale and, like Trump, says whatever he needs to say depending on the audience's speaking to. I'd love to see him speak on the same topic to a bunch of charter school donors. Biden is full of shit and his words are worthless. Robinson generously gave him a 3 (EFFECTIVE) and added "Joe is an old-school politician, and knows how to work a room-- his support and respect for the profession of education is clear and honest-- he says that if he is president, teachers will have a friend in the White House, and I think teachers believe him; the concern is whether his apparent reversals of course on charters and testing are lasting, or fleeting." ( I would have rated him a 2 (DEVELOPING) by the standard being used.

Mayo Pete, as usual, was a sweet-talking consultant-schooled bullshitter. He's another one whose words are meaningless and says whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear. Robinson seemed surprised about something anyone who follows Mayo could have predicted: "Buttigieg’s time on the stage was curiously devoid of much in the way of, well…policy... Buttigieg finished his session by recycling the worn-out reformster argument from Raj Chetty, that 'a good kindergarten teacher is worth $300,000 to a kindergarten student’s earnings over time,' an idea that’s just…well…silly. What it does do is align with Buttigieg’s technocratic world view: that things are only valuable when they can be measured, preferably in dollars and cents. It’s the way that a McKinsey consultant whose number crunching results in firing nearly a thousand employees at a Michigan health insurance company might think about making education seem 'valuable,' by reducing the quality of one’s educational experience to a simple cost-benefit analysis–but it’s not how students, teachers, or parents value the education offered in their community’s schools." Robinson gave him a 3 (EFFECTIVE) but then reduced it a 1 (INEFFECTIVE)... "backdoor TFA?"





Also predictable was that Colorado Senator Michael Bennet would be the worst of the candidates who showed up. "Bennet began by claiming to be the 'first superintendent ever to run for president,' a boast that might have gone over better with this crowd if Bennet had ever studied education (he did not), or taught (he did not) before beginning his career in education as superintendent of Denver’s schools. Bennet then moved on to one his favorite talking points-- setting up the false choice that free preschool would be a better use of tax dollars than free public college and university tuition. As if this was an episode of Highlander instead of a serious policy discussion, and 'there can be only one.' He then pivoted to what would become a common theme among the candidates, the need for better teacher pay…but Bennet’s suggestion to pay teachers more came with some pretty shocking strings attached: a call for a 6 day school week, and year-round schools-- especially for urban schools. Neither of these ideas gained much traction with a room full of students and teachers–none of whom, it should be pointed out, would have been able to attend this Saturday forum if Bennet’s ideas were put into policy... For Bennet, equity is a beard for charters and privatization... Bennet followed up his performance at the Public Education Forum with a visit to a group of charter school activists who were protesting outside of the venue... INEFFECTIVE... Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Presidential Candidate."

And of course, never expect to see Michael Buy-The-Election Bloomberg at any kind of a free-wheeling policy forum like this.

Anti-Healthcare Candidates Biden, Buttigieg & Bennet Are Better Than Trump-- But So Is A Hot Pile Of Dog Vomit-- Would You Nominate Dog Vomit To Be President?

Nancy Pelosi, who has great taxpayer-funded health insurance and has a net worth of $120 million, doesn't understand what Medicare does for people; why should she? Since I started getting it, I've been shocked when I talk with members of Congress who are absolutely clueless about the massive-- and massively important-- program they fund. It's time for Pelosi to move along. Didn't she promise to give up the speaker's gavel? Why the hell is she running for Congress again?

Yesterday, Elizabeth Warren announced her how-you-pay-for-it proposal for Bernie's Medicare-for-All plan, an excellent response to the insurance industry critics.

And it's not just the special interests directly. It's also Biden, Mayo Pete and that Bennet guy who, believe it or not, is running for president-- instead of working for the citizens of Colorado who foolishly elected him senator. The crooked candidates the insurance industry is financing are on the warpath. Warren's rise in the polls has prompted sustained attacks by all of them about how she would pay for her plans. "As someone known to come up with politically savvy ways to sell dense policy ideas communicating the gist of this 20-page proposal will be a major test of her candidacy."

Michael Bennet, who no one has heard of outside of his own state-- other than a few people who noticed his anti-progressive debate performances-- sports a 0.5% RealClearPolitics polling average, a bit more than fellow conservatives John Delaney (0.2%) and Steve Bullock (0.0%). His Iowa average is also 0.5% but his New Hampshire and Nevada averages are 0.0% in each state. In South Carolina he shoots all the way back up to 0.5%. But he isn't dropping out. He has a strong anti-healthcare message and must fear the Republican Party isn't delivering it well enough on their own. "Voters are sick and tired of politicians promising them things that they know they can’t deliver," he said in a statement. "Warren's new numbers are simply not believable and have been contradicted by experts. Regardless of whether it's $21 trillion or $31 trillion, this isn't going to happen, and the American people need health care."

The Biden campaign was just as negative about Warren's proposal, sending corporate stooge, Kate Bedington, out to tell the media that "The mathematical gymnastics in this plan are all geared towards hiding a simple truth from voters: it's impossible to pay for Medicare for All without middle-class tax increases." Senator Warren responded by questioning whether Biden is running in the right primary: "Democrats are not going to win by repeating Republican talking points. So, if Biden doesn’t like that, I’m just not sure where he’s going."

In introducing her proposals, Warren suggested starting with Bernie's Medicare-for-All Act-- "which I have cosponsored. The bill provides a detailed proposal for how to achieve our end goal. But as economists and advocates have noted, the legislation leaves open a number of key design decisions that will affect its overall cost, and the bill does not directly incorporate specific revenue measures. While much of this ambiguity results from the reasonable choice to delegate significant implementation discretion to the Executive Branch, it has also allowed opponents of Medicare for All to make up their own price tags and try to scare middle class families about the prospect of tax increases-- despite the conclusions of expert after expert after expert that it is possible to eventually move to a Medicare for All system that gives both high quality coverage for everybody and dramatically lowers costs for middle class families."

Sean McElwee summarizes Warren's proposal by explaining it "would not raise taxes on the middle class, but raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy instead." He also offers how the specifics poll with voters:

• Senator Warren’s Medicare for All financing plan, that doesn’t raise taxes on the middle class, is supported by a 57-30 percent margin among voters, and it is supported by a 53-32 percent margin among independents as well. Fully 1 in 3 Republicans support this financing plan as well
• Voters clearly support the goal of universal health coverage, with 59 percent of voters saying they would be more supportive of legislation if they thought it would achieve universal coverage. Seventy-four percent would be more supportive of Medicare for All if they knew it eliminated uncertainty as to whether or not a patient could see any doctor without worrying about their coverage
• Opponents of Medicare for All tend to have more comprehensive coverage already and therefore likely do not perceive any benefits to them of moving to a different system. In contrast, those with less coverage or with more uncertainty about their current coverage favor Medicare for All
• A Democrat running on Medicare for All would defeat Trump in a hypothetical election matchup, a finding consistent across repeated experiments using multiple vendors
• Voters report that media coverage of Medicare for All overall is mixed, with those who say they have heard a lot about Medicare for All splitting evenly on whether what they’ve heard has been positive or negative
• Voters know the healthcare positions of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but there is more uncertainty around the beliefs of other candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden
• Medicare for All is not viewed as political extremism, with more voters saying that it is reflective of common goals seen in other democratic countries than saying it is reflective of a socialist takeover of healthcare by the government

It took progressives 6 decades to pass Medicare, fighting conservatives the whole way, conservatives from both parties, many of them bought out-- meaning bribed-- by special interests. And all along the way, the conservatives chipped away at it-- removing pieces and narrowing who would be covered. The plan the Bernie and Elizabeth are trying to pass is more like original Medicare than the current system is. And corrupt conservatives from both parties are still trying to stop it-- not just the entire GOP, but scumbags like Biden, Buttigieg and Bennet as well.

The B-Team

What Do You Do About Democratic Candidates Who Oppose Medicare?

From 1905, when it was first introduced, to 1965 when a Democratic landslide the year before than finally allowed it to pass, Medicare had been opposed by conservatives-- of both parties. In its last few years before passage, Wilbur Mills (D-AR), the completely conservative Democrat sexual predator and alcoholic who chaired the then all-powerful House Ways and Means Committee prevented Medicare from being voted on. The Democratic landslide of 1964 broke the grip on Congress of the alliance between the GOP and the right-wing (mostly) southern Democrats.

Democrats gained a net of 37 new seats, bringing their already strong majority to 295-140. But it wasn't just the number of Democrats, it was the quality and progressive nature of Democrats that allowed passage of Medicare-- albeit a flawed compromised version that conservatives had turned it into (no one under 65, no dental, no medicine, no vision, etc). Four conservative Democrats were defeated by Republicans in Alabama as were 2 in Georgia, which may have made some establishment Democrats sad but is part of the reason Medicare passed. Right-wing Republican Patrick Martin was defeated by liberal John Tunney in Riverside, California. San Franciscans elected Medicare champion Phillip Burton to his first term. Of Iowa's 6 anti-Medicare Republicans, five were swept out of office by Democrats who backed it. Of the 6 new Democrats elected that year in Michigan all were Medicare supporters. In New York 7 Republican anti-Medicare congressmen were defeated by 7 pro-Medicare Democrats. In Robert Taft, Jr., a fanatic anti-Medicare freak from Ohio, retired from the House (to run a losing race for senator) and was replaced by Democrat Robert Sweeney, who backed Medicare. Memphis, Tennessee Democrats defeated racist dog Clifford Davis in the primary, replacing him with pro-Medicare Democrat George Grider. In Washington state, 4 anti-Medicare Republicans were replaced by 4 pro-Medicare Democrats, including future Speaker Tom Foley and future Senator Brock Adams.

Sorry for the tangent, but I do want to say that if not for conservatives-- Republicans and Democrats both-- the U.S. would have had Medicare decades sooner than 1965 and it would have had far more in common with the Medicare-For-All bills that were written by Bernie in the Senate and Pramila Jayapal in the House than with the Medicare today. It would have covered everyone for starters. And it would have covered medicine, treatment for eyes and ears, teeth and mental conditions.

When rotgut shitbags like Michael Bennet-- an appointed U.S. Senator with a consistent rating of "F" from ProgressivePunch-- say, as he always does, "One sure way of losing a Senate race in Colorado would be to be for Medicare for All," his is the voice of Wilbur Mills and other conservatives who opposed Medicare for 60 years. His is the voice of conservatives who opposed the American Revolution, the emancipation of the slaves, giving people who were neither male, wealthy, or white the right to vote, the voice of people who opposed Civil Rights and desegregation, public education, anti-trust laws, environmental protection, consumer protection, the 8-hour work week, Social Security, unemployment insurance, gay equality... All the things conservatives fought against... those were the Michael Bennet's of our past and today it should come as no surprise that these conservatives oppose Medicare-for-All and call it socialism. Needless to say, Bennet wants more douche bags like himself in the Senate, which is why he has endorsed John Frackenlooper, who also opposes Medicare-for-All.

It's a funny thing about Frackenlooper. During one of the debates, when he was still running his nonsensical presidential run-- with his mighty average 0.3% support-- he was trying to make the case that he is progressive by bragging that marijuana legalization happened while he was governor of Colorado. That's true; tidied. He somehow neglected to mention that he fought legalization all the way. Even after Amendment 64 passed in 2012, Frackenlooper called it reckless and then sulked for two years.

Not the same as Medicare-for-All... but not unrelated either

Last month, the Colorado Sun compared all of the state's Senate candidates vying to take on right-wing Republican Cory Gardner, in regard to Medicare for All. Frackenlooper, they pointed out, has cautioned that supporting Medicare-for-All "gives Republicans a lane of attack to label Democrats socialist. He said the party 'might as well FedEx the election to Donald Trump' if they don’t heed his warning." I can imagine him warning that the Sons of Liberty were a bunch of extremists and siding with Jospeh Galloway to advocate not breaking with Britain. He probably would have moved to Britain with Galloway and other loyalists who felt the demands for independence were too extreme. That's who Frackenlooper is and has always been-- cowardly, visor-free, conservative garbage.

In Colorado’s Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, at least two candidates support a single-payer government plan that covers everyone through Medicare, including the best-known candidate in the race, Andrew Romanoff.

“A lot of folks find when they change jobs, quit their jobs, when they get fired or their employer goes out of business, they lose their coverage,” said Romanoff, former speaker of the Colorado House. “So if we are serious about guaranteeing health care to all Americans, making sure that’s not just a paper promise but real access to health care, then I think we’ve got to rethink the way that the system works. It’s a false promise to tell folks that their coverage is secure under an existing system.”

The other candidate is Stephany Rose Spaulding, who says that health care should focus on taking care of people and not making money for private insurance companies. “I would make the public option so great that people would find no need for private insurance,” the Baptist pastor and University of Colorado-Colorado Springs professor said.

The stance aligns the two with the policy’s champion in the Democratic presidential primary, Bernie Sanders. The Vermont senator supports a plan that would essentially get rid of private insurance in favor of government coverage for doctor appointments, prescriptions and more. His rival, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, agrees with the idea, as do four other candidates, though they leave room for private insurance.

Romanoff’s plan differs from Sanders’ model in a key way. He thinks people should be able to supplement their Medicare coverage with private insurance if they wish, mirroring how the government-run health care system works today. That, he believes, would allow people to have more choice in their care but also protect them from losing care all together.

“I wish a public option had been added to the Affordable Care Act when this debate began 10 years ago,” he said. “I think a public option would be an improvement on the status quo. I just don’t want to lose sight of the end goal here, which is to get to a place of health care for all.”

Gardner is using Sanders’ embrace of Democratic socialism and Medicare for All as fodder for attack against the crowded field of Democrats seeking to unseat him. It’s a key part of his campaign.

“Socialized medicine means less choice, higher taxes and longer wait times and more government control,” Gardner said during the Western Conservative Summit in downtown Denver last month. “It means losing the health care that you have at your job and having it replaced with government-run healthcare. It’s so free that it’s unavailable. … We know that Democrats’ Medicare for All will actually result in Medicare for none.”

Romanoff and Spaulding reject Gardner’s argument and brush off Bennet’s argument.

“Is this argument going to make it easier for the insurance industry and the drug companies to bankroll Cory Gardner’s campaign and beat up on any Democrat that dares to take them on? Then the answer to that question is yes,” Romanoff said. “But there are more people who are committed to getting a place of universal health care then there are insurance companies and drug companies intent on killing the plan.”

Spaulding said people who call Democrats socialist for supporting Medicare for All are “just trying to trigger people’s emotions.”

“I would say to Bennet that more than 70% of Americans are advocating for a health care system that everyone can have access to,” she said. “So I don’t think we are alienating anyone.”

And then came all the dummy candidates, careerists who just want the job but are clueless and without strong values or principles and are examples of what's wrong with the American political class.

...Others in the Democratic field running to unseat Gardner support a government-run health insurance option that could operate alongside the Affordable Care Act but would allow people to keep their private provider.

“I think a public option is very much wanted across America,” said Alice Madden, a former Colorado House Majority leader. “My view is, it’s about choice. I think if it’s done well in 10 years, maybe private insurance does go away because everyone sees this is the way to go. But if someone is fearful and it totally flips them out (to lose their private insurance) why would you make them do that?”

As for why she thinks Medicare for All is the wrong way to go, Madden says: “I don’t know if it’s necessary and would maybe end up wasting some taxpayers dollars where you don’t need to.”

Dan Baer, an Obama-era diplomat, calls his version of the public-option plan “Medicare for All who need it” or “Medicare for All who want it.”

“I think it makes sense to start with targeting the people who don’t have care right now or people who don’t have access to affordable care,” Baer said.

  ...John Walsh, Colorado’s former U.S. Attorney, and state Sen. Angela Williams also are generally on the same page as their Democratic rivals when it comes to endorsing a public option.

“I think that we have before us a system that could work and should work if we repair it,” Walsh said of the Affordable Care Act.

Williams said she’s “not ready to take away people’s choices, but we want to ensure that people who don’t have healthcare coverage-- that we take care of them with an option.”

She doesn’t foresee the divide on health care becoming a serious divide in the large field. “I think that there are a lot of talented people running in the Senate race, and I believe that we’re all going to be as cordial as possible in running this race,” she said. “Because divisiveness, we might disagree on our views, on issues, but Colorado doesn’t like negative campaigning.”

Baer echoed that sentiment. “I’m proud to be part of the party that is trying to solve a problem that is facing too many Americans,” he said. “And I think we are having a healthy policy discussion.”

I asked a candidate from a different race-- in a fairly red district-- why his e-mails weren't mentioning Medicare-for-All, just GOP/DCCC-type messaging about "access." I asked him if there was a strategy, since I know he is absolutely in favor of Medicare-for-All. Here's what he wrote to me:

No. There’s no strategy. This week has been a bit of a rough one here on my campaign internally. The guy that has been helping me, set me up with this digital marketing firm and turns out that both of them are pretty moderate and want me to run more moderately and think that’s the path to win. This [the e-mail I was complaining to him about] came from their advice-- it was set up a while ago before I publicly endorsed Jayapal’s bill-- so I missed circling back to it and didn’t realize it was still in the queue to go out.

But-- they are gone now. Both of them. I’m not going to run as a moderate and I don’t need people pushing me that way. Unfortunately-- I wish this email had been stronger on the healthcare front-- but hopefully I can send out another one soon and clearly lay out my position for Medicare for All. Strike this up as an early mistake.

I’ve brought on another digital marketing firm which I think will fit my campaign much better. And I’m in the midst of bringing on another manager as well-- someone who worked with AOC last cycle.

I’m seeing there’s a bit of a learning curve for a first time candidate. It takes a minute to realize the value of the advice you get at first. But I’m learning.

Axios reported yesterday that Pelosi is about to release a moderate drug-pricing plan that "would direct the federal government to negotiate the price of certain expensive drugs with little or no competition-- and, crucially, that would also become the price in the private market, not just the Medicare drug coverage price... That's awfully close to what Trump has endorsed before, but Democrats aren’t eager to share the issue ahead of 2020... The drug industry is spending record-setting amounts of cash on lobbying, and it's shoveling campaign cash at Republican senators in an effort to remind them that pharma and Republicans have always been friends. 'I think this is a real test of that alliance,' the industry lobbyist said."

The real bill, the one Pelosi will not allow to come to a vote, was written by Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)-- H.R. 1046. It has 126 Democratic cosponsors, over half the caucus, but Pelosi has it bottled up in the two committees she completely controls through her puppets, Energy and Commerce (Frank Pallone) and Ways and Means (Richard Neal).

Remember, in 2018 it was the promise to reduce prescription drug prices that helped Democrats win the midterms, as more than just the "we hate Trump" party. And reducing prescription drug prices was also a Trump promise despite Republican party protestations. It's almost a year since the midterms and Pelosi hasn't moved an inch-- just more political game-playing, which is the only thing she does any more.

Doggett’s bill deals with pharmaceutical companies that don't negotiate in good faith by enablinhg HHS to issue licenses to competitors who would be able to produce the same drug as a generic, effectively eliminating a company’s monopoly on a particular drug. Pelosi's leadership has largely avoid backing Doggett's bill-- no Steny Hoyer (MD), no Ben Ray Luján (NM), no Jim Clyburn (SC), no Hakeem Jeffries (NY), no Cheri Bustos (IL), no Frank Pallone (NJ), no Richard Neal (MA)... And, of course, the Republican-lite Blue Dog/New Dem freshmen all oppose it-- all the regular suspects: Kendra Horn (OK), Sharice Davids (KS), Joe Cunningham (SC), Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Ben McAdams (UT), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Angie Craig (MN), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Colin Allred (TX), Mikie Sherrill (NJ), Anthony Brindisi (NY)... Their constituents like being ripped off by drug companies?

Even though Trump kind of likes Pelosi's plan, a corporate shill like George Holding (R-NC) has finally found an issue to oppose Trump on! The progressive Democrat opposing Holding's reelection this cycle, Jason Butler, told me that "Holding is not fighting to lower prescription drug prices for the people of North Carolina and he’s not protecting his people from the predatory practices of big pharma that led to the opioid epidemic. Some wonder why? Well, you don’t need to look any further than his bank account. As of 2018 Holding has received more than $185,000 from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Holding has a long history of putting personal profit before the needs of his people and its time for a leader who will stand up to big pharma and put the needs of the people of NC first."

Shaniyat Chowdhury is the progressive Democrat taking on corrupt New Dem Gregory Meeks in southeast Queens. "It’s not enough," he told us this morning, "to call yourself a Democrat by covering horns with a halo, and pretending you’re fighting for working class people. Gregory Meeks already accepts millions of dollars from the finance, insurance, and real estate lobbyists to keep him in power, but not for working class people like us. He leverages big money in DC for industries that do not care about our well being. Prescription drug prices are an all-time high. In the richest nation in the world, no person should be too poor to live. Big pharma and our government should not determine the price tag for our lives. Immoral incompetency is why things never get done in DC, and is exactly why corrupt incumbents should be challenged."

Kim Williams is also a progressive Democrat running for a seat occupied by a corrupt conservative, in this case, the one occupied by Blue Dog Jim Costa in the Central Valley. She told us today that "This summer, we knocked on thousands of doors and spoke with hundreds of voters in this district. The topic that came up most was healthcare. We've heard story after story about people who are on the brink of homelessness because of medical debt. We also lack care, and I, myself, have to drive two hours to get to my doctor often after waiting weeks to get an appointment. One in four adults live below the poverty line here and two-thirds of our kids are on some form of federal assistance. And if the national average holds true for this district, at least twenty percent of our residents are choosing between medicine and food. Is now really the time to be playing political football? And what is the point of holding on to a majority if you're going to put politics over people's lives? Every crisis families in this district face is directly tied to political neglect, and it's long past time for change."

Rumblings On The Right... Of The Democratic Party

Democratic Hopefuls by Nancy Ohanian

There are now 21 Democrats running for the party nomination. Other than Biden, the front runners are all either progressives or running as progressives. But what about on the right of the party? Biden owns this lane... but he doesn't he really have it to himself. McKinsey Pete is waiting to move in and swallow up the establishment when Biden (inevitably) slips and breaks a political hip. Many inside the Democratic status quo establishment prefer steady-as-she-goes Pete to the less self-controlled Biden. Pete, for the establishment, was a less quirky version of Beto or Biden, a text-book moderate with a shiny blue cover.

Then there are the two entrants from Colorado competing for the lane. Frackenlooper penned an OpEd for the Wall Street Journal Sunday: I’m Running to Save Capitalism, his anti-socialism rant. But his anti-Medicare (For-All) pitch-- not all that dissimilar to The Journal's own reactionary OpEd, The Burdens ofBernieCare, yesterday-- was nothing compared to the ratings of one of the most conservative-- and ineffective-- Democrats in the Senate, Michael Bennet (yes, he's running too).

Bennet's was a full-frontal conservative attack on progressivism, especially on Medicare (For All) on CNN. He actually repeats the twisted GOP lies you hear from the Fox propaganda machine that seem really strange coming out of the mouth of a politicians with a "D" next to his name. That's "D" for Democrat; as far as his ProgressivePunch grade, Bennet had a solid "F," at all times and in any circumstance, one of the Senate's 10 worst Democrats, always someone who can be counted on to muddy up the Democratic brand and make casual voters say that there's no difference between the two parties.

Bennet, pontificating on New Day: "When you tell people the first thing about Medicare for All-- either that it takes insurance away from 180 million Americans that have it through their employer or the taxes we would have to pay to afford that $30 trillion program-- that 70 percent support falls to the mid-30s. I think we need to level with the American people."

Today, insightful DC-based journalist Skip Kaltenheuser asserted that "Any litmus test for candidates ought to start with condemnation and rejection of all dark money, and with demands for complete transparency of donors. The Democratic Party needs to cultivate squads of candidates like Eliot Ness’s Untouchables. Candidates need to channel the late William Proxmire (D-WI), who despite heading the Senate Banking Committee, turned down the legalized bribes he could easily have cultivated and kept up the pepper on banks. That’s the only way for the Democratic Party to cultivate credibility with Independents. It’s hard to imagine more superfluous groups and functions than big dark money groups creating levers of well-heeled influence ostensibly to inform candidates how to target voters with viable messages for working people. If candidates don’t know by now, why are they running? Have they never listened to speeches by Bernie? Bernie seems to have come up with very viable messages without knocking on dark money doors or incurring IOU’s coming due down the road."

You read something like that and you know what's coming: another attack on Status Quo Joe. Last week, the Center for Responsive Politics, reported on the Biden-connected Future Majority 501(c)(4) nonprofit-- a new "dark money" group, labeling itself the strategy center for Democrats in 2020. They expect to spend as much as $60 million combatting Trump's lies is wing states next year. They claim they will help Democrats "craft messaging that they are fighting for working people while countering conservative talking points."

They will not disclose the source of their funds. Why? What are they hiding? Why are they Democrats? Are the crooks and gangsters supposed to be in the other party? And why are all these efforts associated with people like Bidena nd the Clintons and never with straight-forward values-driven Democrats like Bernie or Elizabeth Warren?

Earlier this year, Democratic fundraiser Matthew Tompkins formed a super PAC called America’s Future Majority Fund PAC. He is also listed as the custodian of records for an identically-named nonprofit run by Riddle and is listed as governor on incorporation records for Future Majority. The two long worked together at New Leaders Council (NLC), a nonprofit that helps recruit young progressive leaders. ["Progressive" meaning Democratic Party not actually progressive in any sense of the word.]

The revolving door between the new nonprofit and NLC doesn’t end there. Incorporation records show Future Majority’s incorporator is Cathedral Strategies LLC, a limited-liability company with a paper trail linked to Brett Avery Seifried, who was general counsel of NLC.

With Tompkins, links between Future Majority and presidential contender Joe Biden begin to emerge. The Hill reported that Tompkins recently launched a pro-Biden super PAC, titled For the People PAC, with the aim of raising tens of millions of dollars to support Biden’s campaign.

The group hasn’t emerged in FEC filings yet, but the Washington Free Beacon reported that Tompkins established a committee called Biden PAC on April 26. The same day it was established, the PAC renamed itself to G Street and removed Tompkins as its treasurer.

Several of the operatives tied to Future Majority have long histories in former President Barack Obama’s political circles.

Dustin Robinson is listed as the designated agent for Future Majority in D.C. incorporation records and the agent for America’s Future Majority Fund in FEC records. He also served as NLC’s communication director and worked as an organizer for Organizing for Action (OFA), a 501(c)(4) nonprofit created by former Obama campaign aides to pick up where the campaign left off.

Future Majority is also enlisting Philip Munger, who served as an OFA director, and Julianna Smoot, a deputy campaign manager on Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection effort who went on to serve as the director of Obama’s foundation and treasurer of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Incorporation records reveal another group named Future Majority existed-- at least on paper-- from 2008 until 2011. Potentially an earlier iteration of the newly launched nonprofit, the group’s listed agent was Ivan Frishberg, OFA’s climate-change manager.

OFA shifted its direction in early 2019 to become All On The Line, a nonprofit dedicated to ending gerrymandering primarily in Republican-gerrymandered states.

Although Obama isn’t poised to endorse a particular candidate in the crowded Democratic primary leading up to the 2020 presidential election, former Obama aides appear to be laying the groundwork to support their candidate of choice-- whoever that may be.

Biden’s campaign has said it doesn’t welcome support from super PACs, following a similar stance to most 2020 Democrats. Whether these public disavowals make an impact remains to be seen, as super PACs are not allowed to coordinate with candidates and may independently spend to support or oppose any candidate-- with or without their permission.

Tompkins did not respond to a request for comment on whether the pro-Biden super PAC will work with Future Majority. Future Majority did not respond to a request for comment on whether it will back a candidate in the primary.

Tompkins isn’t the only person linked to Future Majority to throw support behind Biden. Actress Alyssa Milano, who is reportedly working to promote the group on social media, strongly defended Biden in a recent interview with MSNBC, putting an emphasis on nominating a candidate who has the best chance of beating “this horrible, horrible president.” Biden has pitched himself as having the best chance of beating President Donald Trump-- and the polls, for the time being, back up his argument.

Riddle told Politico he is worried about 2020 Democrats being labeled as socialists-- an increasingly common Republican talking point entering 2020. On its about us page, Future Majority, urges Democrats to use the terminology “Smart Capitalism” when describing economic plans. The group also subtly pushes back on Medicare-for-All, calling for Democrats to improve healthcare by “strengthening the Affordable Care Act and protecting Medicare and Social Security.”

Although Future Majority is not required to disclose its donors, the group told Politico it is backed by Democratic megadonors Philip Munger, Dan Tierney and Keith Mestrich [members of the "anyone but Benir or Elizabeth Warren cabal]. Munger has already given to 2020 hopefuls-- the maximum $5,600 to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and $5,600 to Rep. Eric Swalwell’s (D-CA) congressional committee. Tierney has given to four 2020 Democrats thus far-- $2,800 to former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) and U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and $5,600 to Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg.

Future Majority is soliciting donations through ActBlue Civics, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization that acts as a fundraising conduit for other overtly political nonprofits such as Demand Justice and Priorities USA. On its donate page, the nonprofit uses language such as “Let’s Win! Donate now to support Future Majority!” to describe its activities.

While groups operating as purported social welfare organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code are allowed to engage in some political activities, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) prohibits them from having politics as their primary purpose. But the IRS has not established any “bright line” rules governing what constitutes too much politicking.

“The IRS has allowed the determination of political activity to operate within a grey area,” said Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “A group like Future Majority can likely feel comfortable pushing the legal envelope expecting the IRS will let them get away with it.”

Lack of clarity in IRS or FEC rules allows politically-active nonprofits to make a major impact in federal elections-- totaling $1 billion in all-time FEC-reported dark money as of 2018. Dark money was dominated by conservative groups for several consecutive cycles prior to 2018, when liberal groups shelled out more on FEC-reported outside spending than their conservative counterparts.

The surprising shift was sparked by the emergence of Majority Forward, a Senate Democrat leadership-linked 501(c)(4) nonprofit that spent a cycle-high $40 million. It also contributed directly to super PACs, including a $1.1 million contribution to the closely-aligned Senate Majority PAC.

As Hamilton Nolan mentioned in a Guardian OpEd last month-- Clinton-era Politics Refuses To Die. Joe Biden Is Its Zombie That Staggers On, Biden is wrong in thinking that "he’s well positioned because after the shock of the Trump years, people want to go back to where we were." As we've mentioned all year, the Biden campaign is nothing but a brain-dead resuscitation of Warren G. Harding's Back to Normalcy campaign, which led to, arguably, the worst presidency ever (until the current one). "You cannot," explained Nolan, "understand politics in America until you understand that in the Democratic party, which ostensibly represents the left side of our nation’s political spectrum, there are a significant number of people who genuinely believe that Joe Biden is the best possible presidential nominee. Their belief is not cynical, or at least not wholly cynical."

His constituency is real. It is not illuminating to think of them just as centrists, arguing for the gentlest sprinkling of sugar over the top of America’s poison. It’s better to think of them as zombies: the product of three decades of self-serving, triangulating brainwashing. They are the Democrats who had their eyelids propped open and were forced to watch the Clinton era, year after year after year. It is not so much that they do not, deep down, harbor a vague wish for a better world; it is that, like stray dogs dining exclusively on garbage, life has taught them that this is the best that they will ever get.

Consider what it says about the state of America’s political system that in the left party, the presumptive frontrunner for the presidential nomination did not think twice about kicking off his campaign with a fundraiser hosted by the founder of a union-busting law firm, days before appearing at a major union-hosted rally. And why should he? He gets the money, and then he gets the union support. He knows his audience well. This is how Democratic politics has been done in Joe Biden’s lifetime. This is how it works.

It is not remarkable in the least for Joe Biden to come right out of the gate by filling his coffers with money from telecom and health insurance executives. Who is going to tell him that he shouldn’t? The lobbyists advising his campaign? The zillionaire media executives feting him in a Hollywood mansion? The superstructure of Obama administration functionaries who see him as the most established of the establishment brand names? For the people who matter, Joe Biden is doing just what he is expected to do.

And that is just it. Millions of people-- including, most importantly, Joe Biden himself-- have yet to see any evidence that he is not playing the game exactly as it should be played.

We are talking about a person who built his career as the credit card industry’s man in Washington, while simultaneously cultivating a reputation as a down-to-earth everyman. We are talking about a man who voted against gay marriage when it was unpopular-- and then won plaudits for his bravery by changing his mind years later, when it was popular. We are talking about a man who played a key role in launching America’s war on drugs and mass incarceration epidemic, yet who is widely perceived as a sensitive man with hard-won empathy after losing a son. We are talking about a man who voted in favor of the Iraq war even while giving every indication that he knew it was a bad idea.

Later, he apologized. After that, he became the vice-president for a president whose bona fides on the left were based in large part on his opposition to that war. And now, he will try to ride his connection to that popular ex-president into the White House. And all of the pundits will say that he is the man to beat, and all of the money will come flooding in, and the corporate executives will wink at him even as the firefighters union gives him that big labor endorsement. He is well on his way to uniting everyone who likes to watch the world burn.

I am not mad at Joe Biden. He is a type. His type is “The Old Way of Doing Things.” Now that he is in the race, his type is represented. He rounds out the field. Now, Democratic voters truly have the entire buffet of choices, from “True Leftist Insurgent” to “Bland, Winning Young Résumé-Polisher” to “Indistinguishable Ambitious Congresspersons” to “The Same Old Kind of White Guy As Always.”

This is nothing to fear. This is healthy. This is a perfect referendum on where our country is now. Joe Biden, the avatar of the past, believes that he’s well positioned because after the shock of the Trump years, people want to go back to where we were. Wrong. People want to go somewhere new. I fully expect Joe Biden to step out of his campaign headquarters and fall directly into the huge pit that has opened up as America moved tectonically to the left. There is nothing scary about the candidate that represents the political philosophy that produced in the public the deadly cynicism that gave us Donald Trump. This plain fact will never be accepted by the sort of people who believe that Joe Biden is the answer, because accepting it is an indictment of an entire generation of leaders who consider themselves quite successful.

The Republican party has long been a corrupt tool for serving the interests of the rich by lying to the poor; dwelling on their role in bringing us here is like scolding an alligator for biting off your hand after you stuck it in his mouth. The Democrats are the ones who were supposed to save us. It was their failure in this duty that allowed the catastrophes to pile up. They failed to stop the post-Reagan explosion of economic inequality; they failed to stop the militarism that has embroiled us in endless war; they failed to argue for things like healthcare and education as rights rather than purchases; they fed our most vulnerable citizens to an evil machine labeled “criminal justice” in exchange for votes from racists. They earned their turn in power by agreeing not to use that power for the common good. And here we are: incredibly divided, hopelessly unequal, justifiably sick of our broken institutions, and very, very angry.

Good luck on the campaign trail, Joe. You’re about to meet an America that has already left you behind. I’m sorry you’ll have to find out the hard way.

A Quick Senate Scorecard

Chuck Schumer, your next Democratic Senate Minority Leader (source)

by Gaius Publius

I want to offer a quick Senate scorecard for the upcoming election, not just races to watch and their current status, but the effect of the races on the "final score" — control of the Senate until the wipeout in 2018 puts the Republicans firmly in control.

To do this, I want to organize the races the way basketball or football analysts look at your favorite college team's upcoming season — games grouped by Should Be Easy, Tough Call, On the Bubble, Would Take a Miracle. For this exercise, we'll ignore the baked-in results in places like California (Democratic and will stay that way), and list the races to watch by these categories:

• Washouts — four contests (IL, WI, OH, FL)
• No Change — one contest (CO)
• Possible Flips — three contests (NH, PA, IN)
• Toss Ups — three contests (NV, NC, MO)
• and one Wild Card race — Alaska

We will look briefly at these 12 races. Others may disagree, but it looks to me like these are the ones to watch.

For reference, the state of the Senate today is:

• Republicans: 54 seats
• Democrats: 44 seats
• Independents: 2 seats (caucus with Democrats)

No independent is up for reelection this cycle. Democrats need a net pickup of +4 to tie in the Senate (50-50) and +5 to take it outright (ignoring for now the "60 vote rule" that makes sure no progressive legislation gets passed). Here are races in each group, with the likeliest outcomes by group in parentheses.

Washouts (+2 D)

The "washout" states are those where one party has conceded the race by withdrawing money. All four seats are held by Republicans. Two of the Democrats have washed out, as have two of the Republicans. These are:

Illinois, currently Republican
Winner should be Tammy Duckworth (D)

Wisconsin, currently Republican
Winner should be Russ Feingold (D)

Ohio, currently Republican
Winner should be Rob Portman (R)

Florida, currently Republican
Winner should be Marco Rubio (R)

Net result: +2 Democrats.

From Electoral-Vote.com:

Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy in Florida, incumbent Republican Mark Kirk in Illinois, Democratic challenger Ted Strickland in Ohio, and incumbent Republican Ron Johnson in Wisconsin are doing badly enough that their parties either have already cut off the money (the two Republicans), or are close to doing so (the two Democrats).

I think most would call these races closed. (Note: Chuck Schumer actively interfered with progressive challengers in Florida and Ohio. The +2 Democrats could easily be +4 Democrats in this category, absent that interference.)

No Change

This category could be larger (I had the New Hampshire race here at first), but let's play it safe.

Colorado, currently Democratic
Winner should be Michael Bennet (D)

The Hill on Bennet:

Once viewed as one of the only ripe opportunities for Republicans, Bennet appears poised to sail to reelection. Republicans aren’t coming to the aid of Darryl Glenn, a county commissioner who trumpeted his conservative bona fides during the primary. But he’ll need to look beyond his base in a state that Obama carried twice and also has a large Latino population.

Michael Bennet is this guy, by the way, from 2014: "Shorter Republicans: "We forgive Michael Bennet for trying to win the Senate." Shorter Sen. Bennet: "Glad we're still friends.""

Possible Flips (+2 D, Maybe)

These are fairly close races where the Democrat could flip a Republican seat. I have three of these:

New Hampshire, currently Republican
Leader is Kelly Ayotte (R)

Pennsylvania, currently Republican
Leader is McGinty (D)

Indiana, was Republican, now open
Leader is Bayh (D)

If the current leader wins each seat: +2 Democrats, but this is iffy.

In New Hampshire, Ayotte is surging at the moment (+8 in the latest Marist poll), but she's coming from behind. Hassan could take it, but I'm not confident.

The Hill on the Pennsylvania race:

The presidential race appears to be trickling into Toomey’s reelection. Political observers in the state say he’s running a strong campaign, but his dip in the polls is largely thanks to the top of the ticket.

Toomey continues to withhold his support from Trump. But his opponent, Katie McGinty, a little-known former gubernatorial chief of staff, has been helped by Clinton’s consistent lead over Trump in the Keystone State. McGinty has maintained a lead since mid-July, though one survey has Toomey up 7 points.

RealClearPolitics has this race a wash, but I think Toomey has the edge. In Indiana, Bayh is only up by single digits, but has never trailed.

(Note: Chuck Schumer actively interfered with non-Democratic establishment Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary, who might easily have beaten Toomey. If Schumer-chosen candidate McGinty fails to win, it will be because of Schumer.)

Too Close To Call (A Wash)

There are three races here — Nevada, North Carolina, Missouri — and Republicans are defending two of the three seats. (Nevada is an open seat, but was Democratic.)

Nevada, was Democratic, now open
Joe Heck (R) has a slight lead over Catherine Cortez Masto (D)

North Carolina, currently Republican
Richard Burr (R) has a low single-digit lead over Deborah Ross (D)

Missouri, currently Republican
Roy Blunt leads Jason Kander (D), but not by much

Republicans flip one seat if all three leaders win. Most likely positive case for the Democrats is no change (two wins and one loss). If Democrats win out: +2 Democrats.

Subtotal (+2 D or +4 D)

If you're counting the total to this point, Democrats are up +2 among the Washout races, then it's a wash until the Too Close To Call races, where there's either no change (more likely) or they go up +2 (by winning them all).

In other words, our best case gives the Democrats +4 seats, and our middle case gives them +2 seats. That's not enough to take the Senate.

(Note again, that Schumer's interference in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania have reduced these totals. Instead of "+2 Democrats or +4 Democrats" so far, the call would have been " +4 or +6" — putting full control of the Senate within reach.)

Wild Card Race: Alaska

Alaska is a Republican seat at the moment, with Lisa Murkowski defending it. A pro-Sanders Democrat is in position to win the seat — and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants him to lose (!).

Howie has written about the Alaska race here:

[T]he populist Democratic Party in the state-- which gave Bernie a 81.6% to 18.4% landslide over Hillary and massive victories in every single electoral district (numbers that beat Trump too)-- also nominated Ray Metcalfe, a former Anchorage state Rep who was one of the state's original Bernie for President organizers. Although he won the party nomination, 15,198 to 10,074, Metcalfe is not a Schumer kind of candidate....

The DSCC (and Alaska's grotesquely corrupt Democratic Party establishment) are worried that-- with teabagger and Trumpist Joe Miller in the race as a Libertarian and tearing Murkowski apart from the right-- Metcalfe could actually win. ... That's how Schumer's reptilian mind works. So he's encouraging a proven corruptionist buddy of his, Mark Begich, to mount a last minute write-in campaign to draw votes away from Metcalfe and throw the election to Murkowski!

More from Electoral-vote.com (my emphasis)

Alaska looks like it's going to become a free-for-all. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is running for reelection, trying to keep a seat that she last won as a write-in candidate after being primaried by tea partier Joe Miller. She could end up facing four viable opponents: Ray Metcalfe (the Democratic nominee), Margaret Stock (an independent with a very impressive resume), Miller (who's back, as the recently-chosen nominee of the Libertarian Party), and possibly former Democratic senator Mark Begich (who may run—wait for it—as a write-in candidate). 30% of the vote could very well win this thing.

Schumer has succeeded in sabotaging every race he has tried to sabotage, so I'll give Murkowski and Schumer the win.

Alaska, currently Republican
Lisa Murkowski (R) has the edge in a five-person race

Net change (if Schumer succeeds): None.

Your Most Likely 2017 Senate

The most likely 2017 Senate, the high point of the bell-shaped curve, if all current likelihoods hold, appears to be this:

• Republican: 52 or 50 seats
• Democrats: 46 or 48 seats
• Independents: 2 seats (caucus with Democrats)

By sabotaging the Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and possibly Alaska races, Schumer (a) may well have handed Republicans control of the Senate, but (b) will have assured his own personal, hand-picked control of the Democratic minority that remains. In Schumer's world, that must count has a win-win. I can't imagine any other motivation for this ... what, debacle? betrayal?

Anyway, here's a scorecard to follow as these races evolve. For the Democrats to reach 50 seats, watch the Too Close To Call races, plus Alaska.

GP

How Much Damage Will Trump And The Also-Rans Do To The GOP's Slim Hopes Of Holding The Senate Majority?

Will Trump's racist approach inadvertently save Michael Bennet's Senate seat?

The Republican Party brand is now so damaged among key electoral groups-- you can start with rapidly growing/rapidly registering-to-vote Hispanic-Americans and high-propensity Asian-American voters-- that not only is it likely that whoever emerges as the party's nominee will be unable to cobble together a winning coalition in 2016 but it's likely that more and more Senate seats will fall outside the party's grasp. Sure, the Republican brand will still go over well in backward, overwhelmingly ignorant and white gerrymandered congressional districts, particularly in the former slave-holding states, but that will increasingly become all they can do. 

Of course Republicans will never have a problem reelecting their candidates in places like TX-13 (north Texas-- Amarillo, Wichita Falls; R+32), TX-11 (West Texas-- Midland and Odessa; R+31), GA-09 (white, rural northeast Georgia-- Gainseville; R+30) and TX-08 (Huntsville, Crockett and Montgomery County; R+29). But this year all the bigotry and racism Trump has stirred up among the base in the presidential contest is giving the Republican Establishment nightmares in terms of the Senate races.

Keep in the back of your mind some of the results in the national polling PPP released yesterday. Not that Trump is at 29% and Jeb is at just 9%, or that former top-tier candidates Chris Christie and Rand Paul are now at, respectively,  2% and 1%, but that Trump's backers have listened to so much Hate Talk Radio and Fox News that most of them believe President Obama is a Muslim born in a foreign country-- and that Ted Cruz, who freely admits he was born in Calgary, was born in the U.S. These are profoundly ignorant people, driven by their own prejudices and bigotry and completely uninterested in reality other than reality TV. 

Now let's think about the way Trump has energized the other candidates to do exactly what the RNC wants them not to do: go off on a racist and Know-Nothing tangent, which has alienated millions of voters and makes some of their own conclude that the party is just hopelessly lost. Remember, right now most of these goofballs are only thinking about appealing to the racist base to win the primary and not thinking about what happens when they need the votes of normal Americans for the general.

The Republican Party was hoping to hold onto GOP Senate seats in Florida and Illinois and capture blue seats currently held by a retiring senator (Harry Reid in Nevada) and an extremely weak incumbent (Michael Bennet in Colorado). The biggest share of Latino voters in the country are in these 10 states:

• New Mexico, 46.7%-- no 2016 race
• California, 38.1%-- safe Democratic seat
• Texas, 38.1%-- no 2016 race
• Arizona, 30.1%
• Nevada, 27.1%
• Florida, 22.8%
• Colorado, 20.9%
• New Jersey, 18.1%-- no 2016 race
• New York, 18.0%-- safe Democratic seat
• Illinois, 16.1%

It's not likely that the Republican-lite New Dem Schumer recruited to run against McCain in Arizona, Ann Kirkpatrick, is going to win. Nor does it look likely that Republican Mark Kirk can possibly hold onto his seat in Illinois. Nevada, Florida and Colorado will all probably be much closer, but thanks to Trump and the cowards also in the running, all of them are slipping away from whatever grasp the Republicans had on them.

Florida

Obama took the Hispanic vote against Romney 60-39%, and that portion of the vote continues to grow. In 2012 it was 17%; by Election Day 2016 it will be 20%. The likely Democrat to face whichever lunatic the GOP runs-- probably teabagger Ron DeSantis or conservative David Jolly-- is Alan Grayson, who knows how to dish it out as well as Trump and already accused him of "subliminal racism." Last week on MSBNC he told Chris Hayes: "He’s thrown away the dog whistle. It used to be that you had to speak in metaphors in order to exhibit your racism. Now you can just come out and be racist."



Colorado

Michael Bennet is a weak, wishy-washy centrist who generates almost no enthusiasm. But with Obama having won 75% of Hispanics to Romney's 23% and with the share of the voting population climbing from 14% in 2012 to 16% by 2016, Bennet has another advantage: Trump's impact on Colorado GOP politics. The party is a complete mess and has so far been unable to even recruit a plausible candidate to run. The NRCC's top recuits-- Rep. Mike Coffman, state Attorney General Cynthia Coffman and former gubernatorial candidate Mike Kopp-- turned them down one after the other. Instead, the party may be stuck with a choice between perennial candidates, small-time ex-mayors or Tea Party activists.

Nevada

Hispanics in Nevada went for Obama over Romney 70-25%, and where they were 16% of the voting population in 2012, they will be 25% in 2016. Republican Joe Heck is giving up his House seat to run, and that's looking like a bad gamble right now.

So far, however, Heck has also been dragged into the Trump mud. At an appearance at the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce last week, Heck said ending birthright citizenship "needs to be part of the discussion," even as he said, "I don’t talk about Donald."

Former state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, the leading Democratic candidate to replace Reid (who is retiring), is Latina, and has taken to Facebook to slam Trump while implicating other Republicans:

"We’ve all heard Donald Trump’s awful comments about Mexican immigrants-- they’re so offensive that I won’t repeat them here. And as someone who would be the first Latina to ever serve in the U.S. Senate, I’m especially disgusted," she wrote in July. "But some extremist Republicans are actually defending Trump’s outrageous remarks! It’s baffling, and it’s flat-out wrong. That kind of hateful speech has no place in our politics."

The Senate Overview

Right now the GOP holds 54 seats to the Democrats' 44 (46 if you include New England independents Bernie Sanders and Angus King). Of the 34 seats that are up, 10 are held by Democrats and 24 are held by Republicans. The Democrats need to win 5 seats to take the majority. Their pathway to victory includes holding onto Colorado and Nevada while beating Republicans in 5 of these 7: Florida (Grayson), Illinois (Duckworth or Zopp), New Hampshire (Hassan), North Carolina (Ross or Miller), Ohio (Strickland or Sittenfeld), Pennsylvania (Sestak) and Wisconsin (Feingold).

So far Blue America has endorsed four Senate candidates, all vetted progressives. Please consider supporting them here.