Election Reflections-- Blue Dogs, Schumer, Texas, Florida... You Want To Know What Went Wrong?

Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Joe Cunningham (SC) were elected to the House in the 2018 anti-red wave-- just when Blue Dog chairwoman Kyrsten Sinema graduated to the Senate. Sinema was the worst Democrat in Congress-- by far. She voted against anything and everything that smacked of progressivism. She voted with the GOP on progressive roll calls around 75% of the time. Now she's the worst Democrat in the Senate, although we'll soon see if Frackenlooper gives her a run for her money.

Back in the House, Brindisi and Cunningham spent the last two years see-sawing back and forth for the #1 and #2 worst Dems. Both are virulent Blue Dogs with ghastly voting records that could only be analyzed in one way: Republican. At the moment, Cunningham's record is slightly worse-- 76.54% against progressive initiatives, while Brindisi "only" voted against progressivism 75.31%. None the less, Pelosi and Bustos decided to waste $4 million trying to save Cunningham and $5.5 million trying to save Brindisi. Two of the GOP's best friends inside the Democratic caucus-- but especially Brindisi-- spent their time whining about how if anything progressive was brought to the floor for a vote it would doom their reelections.

Cunningham was defeated by Republican Nancy Mace (having out-spent her by $2 million) 216,042 (50.6%) to 210,627 (49.4%). It looked like Brindisi would be joining him in the losers' column-- and he still may-- but... yesterday Syracuse.com reported that Brindisi has surged back into contention, winning the absentee count 73-27% (25,998-7,787)... Brindisi has now cut Tenney’s lead to 10,294 votes, down from 28,422 votes on Election Day. There are at least 20,000 ballots remaining to be counted across the district. Brindisi will have to win at least 77% of those ballots to overtake Tenney." That's a steep hill to climb but it isn't impossible that Congress will be stuck with Brindisi and his whining for two more years.

Let's flip back to the Senate for a minute-- although the DCCC operates exactly like to DSCC-- and take a look at a post from July by Andrew Perez, with the benefit of hindsight-- Senate Democrats’ Machine Spent $15 Million To Destroy Progressive Primary Candidates. Short version: "The Democratic establishment has successfully blocked progressive Senate candidates in primaries, with the help of labor unions, Wall Street tycoons and corporate interests."

Now that the Schumer and the DSCC have managed to confound every pollster and lose the Senate again, it's worth looking at how they undermined every single progressive who tried to run-- spending $15 million in the process during the primaries. They hate progressives and fear them more than Republicans, who they have much more in common with.

While Schumer's DSCC hand-puppet, Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) promised last year that the DSCC would support progressive incumbent Ed Markey if he faced a primary challenger, they reneged entirely when he was challenged by a far less progressive Rep. Joe Kennedy III. Although a SuperPAC set up by Kennedy, the New Leadership PAC, spent $4,126,114 bolstering him, neither the DSCC nor Schumer's slimy Senate Majority PAC, spent a nickel helping Markey. Instead, they spent millions helping very right-wing Democrats like Frackenlooper to defeat progressive former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. "In the final weeks of the race," wrote Perez, "SMP spent $1 million to boost Hickenlooper, after he spent his failed presidential campaign attacking key tenets of progressives’ legislative agenda, including Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. At the time of the cash infusion, Hickenlooper was losing ground in the polls and engulfed in scandals: He had just been fined by Colorado’s Independent Ethics Commission for violating state ethics law as governor, the local CBS station uncovered evidence of his gubernatorial office raking in cash from oil companies, and a video circulated showed Hickenlooper comparing his job as a politician to a slave on a slave ship, being whipped by a scheduler."

The Schumer-controled SMP spent $228,490,266, "pooling cash from both organized labor and business titans to promote corporate-aligned candidates over more progressive primary challengers. Working for Working Americans, a super PAC funded by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, has donated $5 million. The Laborers' International Union of North America’s super PAC has given $1.5 million. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’s political action committee has chipped in $1.3 million. SMP has received also big donations from groups affiliated with labor unions like the Service Employees International Union ($1 million), the National Association of Letter Carriers ($750,000), and Communications Workers of America ($500,000). Overall, the top donor to SMP so far this cycle has been Democracy PAC-- a super PAC that’s bankrolled by billionaire George Soros and the Fund for Policy Reform, a nonprofit funded by Soros. Democracy PAC has contributed $8.5 million to SMP. Other donors from the financial industry include: Renaissance Technologies founder and billionaire Jim Simons and his wife Deborah ($5.5 million) and billionaire D. E. Shaw & Co. founder David Shaw ($1 million)."

Some major donors have financial stakes in current and future legislation.

For instance: SMP received a $1 million donation from billionaire Jonathan Gray, an executive at Blackstone, which owns the hospital staffing chain, TeamHealth. SMP also received $2 million from the Greater New York Hospital Association.

In late 2019, Schumer helped stall Senate legislation that would have kept patients from receiving “surprise medical bills,” the hefty charges that occur when they visit hospitals that are in their insurance network but are unknowingly treated by providers who are considered out-of-network.

SMP is affiliated with Majority Forward, a dark money group focused on attacking Republican Senate candidates. Majority Forward received $450,000 in 2018 from pharmacy giant CVS Health-- which also owns health insurer Aetna. The group also received $300,000 from the American Health Care Association (AHCA), a trade association that represents the nursing home industry.

The Democratic primary candidates backed by the DSCC have expressed reservations about Medicare for All, arguing they believe people should be allowed to keep their private health insurance if they want it. Many of the DSCC’s favored candidates do support creating a public health insurance option.

Meanwhile, the Real Estate Roundtable, a trade group for real estate investors, donated $50,000 to Majority Forward. Schumer and Senate Democrats recently helped Republicans unanimously pass pandemic relief legislation that included a special, little-noticed provision that amounted to $170 billion worth of new tax breaks for wealthy real estate investors.

In addition to the Colorado race, SMP has waded into at least three other Senate primaries this year.

In North Carolina, SMP funded Carolina Blue, a super PAC that spent $4.5 million to help veteran and former state senator Cal Cunningham win the primary in March. Cunningham handily defeated his chief opponent, state senator Erica Smith, who was running to his left...

In Iowa, SMP spent nearly $7 million to promote real estate developer Theresa Greenfield. She easily bested her two primary opponents, including progressive Kimberly Graham, who campaigned in support of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

SMP has already spent more than $2 million in Maine, including nearly $500,000 to promote House Speaker Sara Gideon in the Democratic primary. Some of the group’s advertising against Republican Senator Susan Collins was also designed to boost Gideon.

The final polls and final predictions showed Sara Gideon, Theresa Greenfield and Cal Cunningham beating, respectively, Collins, Ernst and Tillis. Instead the 3 Republicans are returning to the Senate. Gideon's share of the vote was a pathetic 42.7%, Greenfield's was 45.2% and Tillis' was 47.0%. The DSCC and Schumer's PAC spent ungodly amounts, as did the Democratic candidates.

In North Carolina, Cunningham raised $46,795,495 to Tillis' $21,474,728. The DSCC spent $24,542,003 and Schumer's PAC spent $35,838,924.

In Maine, Gideon raised $68,577,474 to Collins' $26,511,555. The DSCC spent $4,667,250 and Schumer's PAC spent $27,909,459.

In Iowa, Greenfield raised $47,004,937 to Ernst's $23,536,707. The DSCC spent $27,899,050 and Schumer's PAC spent $41,225,046.

Both the DSCC and the DCCC have decided to blame progressives for their cataclysmic losses, even though every single incumbent who lost was a conservative and every single progressive-- including progressives in tough districts like Matt Cartwright, Dan Kildee, Andy Levin, Peter DeFazio and Jahana Hayes-- won.

Last week Ryan Grimm asked progressive challenger Mike Siegel this question: "Do you have to run as a kind of centrist or moderate in some of these districts, or can a progressive message win in a swing district in Texas?" Mike began by comparing his race to that of another re-match Texan, Sri Kulkarni (who had an open seat this time). Kulkarni is an avowed conservative, a corporate Democrat and careerist endorsed by both the Blue Dogs and New Dems. He raised $4,863,231 compared to Troy Nehls' (R) $1,532,299 and the DCCC and Pelosi's PAC spent $7.3 million bolstering him. He lost 209,735 (51.6%) to 181,318 (44.6%). Mike Siegel is a Squad-grade progressive who raised $2,332,415 compared to Michael McCaul's $3,515,771 (as of Oct. 14). The DCCC, which preferred a conservative Democrat run, spent $270 on Mike's race and Pelosi's PAC spent zero. Yes, you read that right-- $270. McCaul was reelected 215,896 (52.5%) to 186,350 (46.3%). Had the DCCC spent part of the $7.3 million they wasted on Sri, would Mike have won? We'll never know, will we?

In answer to Grim's question, Mike pointed out that being conservative didn't help Kulkarni and even though he campaigned loudly on Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and racial justice, Mike outperformed him by every possible metric.

[W]hat I would have liked to have tested is if we had an entire progressive ticket. You know, it could be that the most consequential decisions about my campaign were made March 3, Super Tuesday, when we decided that Bernie Sanders wasn’t gonna be the presidential nominee and, in Texas, we decided that Christina Tzintzún Ramirez wasn’t going to be our Senate nominee.

So with my analysis that I’m doing now with our team and many others in Texas is what would it take to really get out more poor voters? I mean, I’m talking about poor people. Like, when you canvass in rural Texas, in a town like Eagle Lake, or Brenham, in the summer, you meet people who are in these rundown, double-wide kind of houses, basically falling apart at the seams-- people who have to survive three months of 100-degree weather with no air conditioning at all, people who have very marginal employment. What’s it going to take to get those folks to care about an election? You know, whether you’re talking about black folks and Latinx voters in a city, or poor rural voters-- black, Latino, and white-- what’s it gonna take for them to really care about an election?

And to me, Bernie Sanders would have helped us make that populous case. You know, Texas has this tradition of populism; it goes back 100 years or more. But like, if we were really talking about farm policy, if we were really talking about water policy, if we were talking about rural jobs programs, things that really affect their lives. I mean, as a congressional candidate, I was talking about these things, but it’s hard to really break through.

Same thing with Christina. You know, statewide in Texas, we’re not going to flip Texas if we don’t win the RGV, the Rio Grande Valley. And, you know, if you haven’t been to Texas, you might not realize there are communities along the border called colonias, where they don’t even have running water and municipal sewage in some of these developments. I mean, these are like, you know, sometimes undocumented residents, sometimes U.S. citizens who are living in abject poverty. What’s it gonna take to get those folks to care? And it’s not some slick TV ads, it’s not a poll-tested message. Even for me, I got some DCCC support, and some of my messaging was about prescription drug prices and protecting pre-existing conditions. But I feel like that’s too nuanced for these folks. I mean, it has to be more direct.

You know, this, this might be a little off-topic, but one of the things I’m thinking about is, think about the movements in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez or Bolivia under Evo Morales. Evo Morales is supported by the poorest indigenous farmers from the high plains of Bolivia. Those people are engaged in the electoral process. In this country, poor people are not engaged in the electoral process.

And so, for me, on a gerrymandered map, I don’t know if I could have gotten more than 210,000 votes, like McCaul got, unless we were really doing organizing with poor people. And I think that’s a longer-term investment. That’s where it’s this question, these people who gave me $2800, when I called them and spoke to them for a minute, would they give me $1,000 if I was gonna say: We’re going to invest in a five-year project to do deep organizing these communities? Is the donor class willing to invest in changing the fundamental conditions in areas like mine that would really enable progressive change in the long term?

...[O]ne of the things I’ve been preaching on the campaign trail, you know, and I got to do some events with Bernie and he absolutely loved it-- you know, this is our New Deal moment, American history: crumbling U.S. infrastructure, massive wealth inequality, unemployment-- major crises we need to confront. In the 30s it was fascism rising in Western Europe; now, it’s climate change.

And how did we enact a New Deal in this country? You know, a 15-year program, the Works Progress Administration, massively investing in infrastructure, putting people to work in all sorts of jobs. It was FDR, when he ran for president the first time, talking about the New Deal every chance he gets: We’re gonna give you a New Deal. Whatever the question was-- economic policy, jobs, health care, you name it, we’re gonna give you a New Deal.

Imagine we had a candidate for president who for 10-12 months is talking nonstop about fundamental economic change. That’s what it takes. And that’s where the Democratic establishment, which to some extent supported me, although not as strongly as they could have, they’re not talking about that, because we’re too invested in conservative donors who don’t want us to say that.

And so we’re caught in between. You know, half the Democratic Party is still taking the corporate PAC money, moderating the message, saying: OK, we’re only going to talk about this extremely narrow issue, you know, protecting pre-existing conditions or negotiating prescription drug prices downwards, whereas like people don’t have AC and it’s 100 degrees every day, they don’t have gas in the car, they’re making $10 an hour and getting 20 hours a week. I mean, they are struggling to survive. They’re completely cynical about democracy as something that’s even real in the world. And we’re not speaking clearly to them about why it matters to vote.

Today, the Washington Post reported that "The parts of America that have seen strong job, population and economic growth in the past four years voted for Joe Biden, economic researchers found. In contrast, President Trump garnered his highest vote shares in counties that had some of the most sluggish job, population and economic growth during his term. Trump fared well among voters who said the economy was their top concern, and he even won votes in places that didn’t fare particularly well under his presidency. This is perhaps a continuation of the 2016 election, when Trump won a huge share of places that had struggled under President Barack Obama. Democrats tended to view the 2020 election more as a referendum on Trump, especially his response to the pandemic." It's worth hitting that Intercept link above and reading Ryan's whole interview with Siegel. But now I want to leave you with a quirky but apocryphal story by Richard Cooke in yesterday's Daily Beast: I Covered Congressional Races in Florida in 2018, and Boy Do I Know Why Trump Won the State in 2020. "One party’s aides were courteous and organized," he wrote. "The other’s could barely tell me when the candidate was speaking next. Wanna take a guess?" He covered FL-26 and FL-27 in 2018, when Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and Donna Shalala both flipped those very blue (but Republican-held) districts blue. This year, both flipped back to red.

Situated in and near Miami, these districts make up some of the most volatile and interesting political territory in the United States. FL-27 had voted heavily for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but the House seat had been held by a socially liberal Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for 30 years. Ros-Lehtinen was retiring, and on paper the district seemed a natural Dem pick-up. The districts also overlapped with Miami-Dade, the most populous county in Florida, whose turnout would be critical in deciding a narrow gubernatorial race.

Instead of requesting interviews, I decided to see the candidates like an undecided voter would, joining the audience for stump speeches and campaign events. This seemed standard, almost old-fashioned reporting. It never occurred to me that it would be hard, let alone so hard that I’d need to extend my stay in Miami. By leaving time, I felt not like an undecided voter, but like a private detective. Finding a schedule of Republican campaign events took 15 minutes. With Democrats, this process took five days.

...Perhaps this information was at one of the other offices. Volunteers tried to be helpful. One suggested a website might have the information, and when pressed, offered unsarcastically that I “try Google.” Another showed me an event dated two weeks prior. Finally, with fanfare, someone produced a number for another campaign office. They could put me in touch with the right person. I stepped outside and dialed. I had called the switchboard for the City of Miami Gardens, Florida.

Irritation was turning into intrigue, and while the next few days were mileage and frustration-heavy, they were in some ways a reporter’s dream. The factional fighting between Miami-Dade Democrats, Florida Democrats, Senate campaign offices and the national party was flagrant. One of the few times I saw the operation energized was when I mentioned the Miami-Dade Democrats to a staffer for and she rolled her eyes. I heard more than one volunteer try to remember the names on the ballot and fail. I was left unsupervised in campaign offices, in prime eavesdropping real estate, though this was just a bonus: campaigners were ready to vent their frustrations, and I opened my confessional.

By comparison, the Republicans I encountered were courteous, organized, and dedicated. I heard a speech by the GOP challenger for FL-27, Maria Salazar, and afterwards her apparatchiks handed me business cards. At voting locations drowned in GOP paraphernalia, campaign staff showed me detailed spreadsheets, tallying how early turn-out numbers tracked with their booth-by-booth strategy. They asked if I needed anything. The competition dynamic was starting to remind me of 1980s comedy movie: a ruthless, well-heeled team up against a band of plucky misfits.

My grail quest became no easier. At one field location, I arrived just before the advertised opening time and waited by myself for hours before leaving empty-handed. Finding the number for one press secretary took phone calls to 22 different people, most of whom didn’t know who he was. Several times I was told that a particular volunteer was important and “knew everything.” Tracked down at a polling booth, he turned out to be a young backpacker, freshly arrived from Spain, who knew as little as anyone else. Later, I realized the source of this special status: he was one of the few people on the ground who could speak Spanish. Donna Shalala herself (i.e. the candidate) could not.

Following a hot tip about a possible press contact, I turned up at another campaign office with a different strategy: I would refuse to leave. After the traditional greeting-- bewilderment, being offered a chair within earshot of indiscrete conversations-- there was a short conclave. I could speak with Ben. Ben and I sat facing each other, in the middle of an open-plan office. By this time I had become a kind of connoisseur of incompetence, and I sensed that Ben was good at something, but he had not dealt with a reporter before. “Can I ask what your role with the campaign is?” Ben was a policy adviser. He had no idea if his candidate had any events that day, and no idea why he was speaking with me.

When the comms person did come in (this was treated as a special occasion), our conversation had an informality that was almost charming. I explained my difficulty with the Democratic campaigns, and the contrast with Republicans. “They’re a lot more organized than us!” she said, and I had to laugh. They sure were! Here at last was some kind of schedule, but as we stepped through it, something was missing. Through exhaustive internet searches, I had found a digital ticketing website offering a Q&A event featuring Donna Shalala. Why wasn’t it on the schedule? “Ohhh, that’s cancelled.” Perhaps, she said, they could line up an interview instead? I explained that I had been trying to see the election from the perspective of a voter, not a reporter, and how information was freely available from Republicans and almost non-existent from Democrats. Catching my drift, she started to flush.

The call came through later, when I was in a Haitian-owned coin laundry. A DNC flack in Washington, D.C. had heard I was making trouble, planning some kind of “Dems in disarray” story, and as I scribbled notes on top of an industrial dryer, I picked up the story that had been relayed to him, as much from his tone as his words. A foreign correspondent had arrived in Miami expecting VIP treatment, then got miffed when the red carpet wasn’t rolled out. Smearing the ground game would be revenge for a bruised ego. “Money at a national level has gone into these seats,” he assured me.

Walking him through what I’d seen-- and hadn’t seen-- only made him angry. “We’re going to win both of those seats,” he said, berating my ignorance. It was a strange reaction. By then I probably had as clear a snapshot of the election in Miami as anyone. Wasn’t that information useful? Potentially important, even? Instead, someone hundreds of miles away was blithely junking this eye-witness evidence in favor of obnoxious confidence. “You’ll see,” he insisted, “when we win FL-26 and FL-27 on election night, I’ll message you.” And they did, and he did.

In my reply, I pointed out that Andrew Gillum, the Democratic favorite to become Florida’s governor, had lost by a narrow margin, and that poor turnout in Miami-Dade was the culprit. And perhaps you can imagine my lack of surprise two years later, when FL-26 and FL-27 both fell to GOP challengers, one of them Maria Salazar. On the presidential ballot, Clinton’s 30-point lead in Miami-Dade shrunk to a 7-point margin for Biden.

In a piece titled What the Hell Happened to Democrats in Miami-Dade?, Rolling Stone observed ruefully that “Miami-Dade is considered safe—until election night, when suddenly it’s not,” and quoted Maria Elena Lopez, first vice-chair of the Miami-Dade Democrats.

Lopez lamented how the Democratic National Convention did not talk to, fund, or advise the local parties. “We don’t get any feedback from the DNC,” she said. “They don’t come to us and say, ‘Hey, what is the messaging that would work in your community? Where are we weak?’ [The party] doesn’t do that, at all. We are on our own.”

“Unfortunately, this is not the first time that we’ve seen this,” she said. It was not the first time I had seen it either.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powll raised $6,178,239 compared to Carlos Gimenez's $1,946,504. The DCCC and Pelosi's PAC spent about $6 million trying to save her. She lost the blue D+6 seat 177,223 (51.7%) to 165,407. Donna Shalala (the one who speaks no Spanish in a 71.7% Latino district) raised around the same $3,000,000 that her opponent, Maria Salazar (from 2018) spent. Shalala was so out of touch with her own constituents that she didn't even request help from the DCCC. In fact, she gave them money! She lost 176,114 (51.3%) to 166,705 (48.6%).

Best Bets For November 3: Mike Siegel (TX-10)

 

Behind the scenes Republican operative gave up on winning back the House early in the campaign. Lately they're realizing that even the "easy" wins are beyond their grasp. They should be able to take back seats from Blue Dogs in deep red districts like SC-01 (R+10), UT-04 (R+13), OK-05 (R+), NY-22 (R+6), MN-07 (R+12), VA-07 (R+6), respectively Joe Cunningham, Ben McAdams, Kendra Horn, Anthony Brindisi, Collin Peterson and Abigail Spanberger, half dozen of the worst incumbents from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Their records are unabashedly opposed to everything Democratic voters want. But this is another one of those "any blue will do" years.

Now that Republican operatives have come to realize that the White House and their Senate majority are gone too, they are also seeing something even more scary than not being able to take back seats like the 6 listed above. And that's losing more deep-red districts like them that the DCCC didn't even target.

Here's how that works: the DCCC now routinely destroys progressive candidates when they try to run in primaries in "winnable" district primaries. In "impossible" districts they rarely bother-- or only make a half-assed attempt. In a tsunami year like this one, suddenly some of those "impossible" districts become very winnable. Progressive candidates like Julie Oliver (TX-25, R+11), Adam Christensen (FL-03, R+9), Audrey Denney (CA-01, R+11), Nate McMurray (NY-27, R+11), Liam O'Mara (CA-42, R+9), J.D. Scholten (IA-04, R+11) and Mike Siegel (TX-10, R+9) are all the kinds of progressives the DCCC would normally try to sabotage-- but in districts like those? Why bother?

Winning in the relatively close districts, the top DCCC targets-- like in NY-24 (D+3), NJ-02 (R+1), TX-23 (R+1), PA-01 (R+1), NY-02 (R+3), IL-13 (R+3), and MN-08 (R+4) aren't that big a deal. Republicans will shrug those losses off. It isn't going to make them reexamine what Trump and other neo-fascists have done to their party. But when "safe" GOP incumbents in deep red districts like Roger Williams (TX-25), Doug LaMalfa (CA-01), Ken Calvert (CA-42) and Michael McCaul (TX-10) start losing their seats... that's when it's time for talks about existentialism and for a general party shakeup. If Brian Fitzpatrick loses, it doesn't mean much; if Michael McCaul does... scores of Republican incumbents know they are no longer safe. But can McCaul lose? Two polls show him and Mike Siegel within the margin of error and with all the momentum belonging to Siegel. Dan Solomon did a deep dive for the Texas Monthly last week-- Can a Bernie-Style Democrat Unseat Longtime Republican Representative Michael McCaul in TX-10? And, believe me, that prospect scares the Democratic establishment every single bit as much as it scares the Republican establishment... which is a lot.

"Redistricting did a number on TX-10," wrote Solomon. "It was one of several districts redrawn in 2003 to dilute Democratic-voting Austinites by dividing them among multiple districts dominated by GOP-leaning voters in rural parts of the state (see also: TX-17, TX-21, and TX-25). The Tenth now includes a tiny sliver of Travis County, where Austin is located, as well as parts of Harris County, home of Houston, and stretches through the rural areas between those two cities. The dynamics of the Tenth have flipped: in 2004, after Doggett was redistricted out of TX-10, Democrats declined to put up a challenger to Republican Michael McCaul, who’s held the seat ever since. Democrats have run in the Tenth since then, but for most of McCaul’s tenure, their presence on the ballot barely registered in the ultra-red district. But in 2018, Mike Siegel, running as a progressive Democrat, came within 4.3 points of unseating McCaul. In 2020, Siegel won the Democratic primary again, setting up a rematch of one of 2018’s more surprisingly competitive races."

[McCaul] has cast votes with the current president more than 95 percent of the time, including on the border wall and the Trump tax cuts. He also found himself at the center of the mask-wearing debate earlier this month after Trump tested positive for COVID, when photos and video surfaced of him going without a face mask on a United Airlines flight. (McCaul claimed the mask fell off while he was sleeping, though subsequent video indicates he didn’t wear it while awake, either.) McCaul, whose father-in-law is the founder and former chairman of radio and advertising giant Clear Channel Communications, is one of the richest members of Congress, with a net worth estimated at $113 million. He’s also well funded, having raised more than $2.5 million this cycle, $1.3 million of which he had on hand at of the end of the year’s second quarter.

Many of the Democrats looking to flip traditionally red districts in Texas are running as moderates and trying to court conservative suburban voters who may feel alienated by the Trump-era GOP. Not Mike Siegel, a labor lawyer and former public school teacher, whose platform touts issues including the Green New Deal, racial justice, and Medicare for all. Siegel is also focused on labor reform-- especially ending “at-will” employment, which allows workers to be fired for any (or no) reason-- and dramatically reshaping U.S. housing policy amid the COVID-19 pandemic. He boasts a trio of high-profile endorsements from former Democratic presidential candidates-- Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Beto O’Rourke-- as well as those of prominent national organizations including the AFL-CIO and Planned Parenthood, and a slew of local politicians, organizations, and newspapers (including the Houston Chronicle).

Siegel has raised $900,000 according to his most recent FEC filing. It’s money he’s been spending at a steady clip: just $164,000 remained as cash on hand at the end of Q2.

The Tenth is changing. Mitt Romney won the district by twenty points in 2012, Trump won by nine points in 2016, and Ted Cruz lost by two-tenths of a percent in 2018. Much of this change has been driven by growth in the urban parts of the district over the last decade, a trend that seems to have kept up after Siegel’s close loss in the 2018 contest: in the last two years, Travis County has added more than 70,000 new voters, while Harris County has added 111,360 to its rolls. (Not every newly registered voter in either county lives in TX-10, of course, but enough of them do to identify the district as one that’s rapidly changing.)

Siegel won Austin by a huge margin in 2018, while McCaul won over voters in the Houston suburbs that year by a narrower (but still comfortable) amount. The rural middle part of the district, meanwhile, also favored McCaul—but 2018 Libertarian party candidate Mike Ryan pulled a whopping 8 percent of the vote outside of Harris and Travis Counties. Siegel could win this year if he runs up the numbers in Austin, keeps it closer in the Houston suburbs, and if the Libertarian on the ballot, Roy Eriksen, can pull votes from McCaul outside of the two cities. (The possibility that third-party candidates could have an impact on close House races led the Texas GOP to sue to keep 44 Libertarians off the ballot earlier this year, though they lost the suit.)

...If Austin turns out in big numbers, and the Houston suburbs prove receptive to a Democrat in the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mold, Siegel could win.

Austin is turning out in large numbers... unprecedented large numbers. Conservative prognosticators who have written off Siegel's chance to flip this district may be in for a huge shock a week from tomorrow. And if you want to help, you can click on the Blue America congressional thermometer above or just hit this Turning Texas Blue link. Electing conservative Democrats of the DCCC ilk accomplishes nothing for the American people-- no reform, no systemic change of any kind. Electing men and women like Mike Siegel and Julie Oliver in Texas... that's what makes the Democratic Party worthwhile and a legitimate vehicle for working families. This cycle, it is only by electing candidates like Siegel and Oliver that can cause a genuine GOP reexamination of what kind of sewer they have slipped into over the past few decades.

There Are People In Congress Working On Sustainable Energy And Environmental Justice-- But We Need More Of Them

In its mission statement, Congress' Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition lays out two overarching goals:

• Advance policies that promote clean energy innovation and domestic manufacturing, develop renewable energy resources, and create good green jobs across the economy and the country.
• Advance polices to address climate change, protect our nation’s clean air, water and natural environment, and promote environmental justice.

There are 67 members-- all Democrats-- who have joined the Caucus. This week, Blue America has been working with their SEEC PAC to help raise last minute campaign contributions for congressional candidates who have been endorsed by both groups, the men and women who will be helping to lead the group's future.

One member, Ted Lieu, was a California state Senator when I first got to know him. At a discussion, someone asked him whey he would want to move away from his life in balmy California to go to the DC snakepit. He immediately focused on what turns out to be the SEEC mission statement. It was all about leaving his two young children a livable world. Yesterday, now-Congressman and now-SEEC member Ted Lieu reminded us that "One of the main reasons I ran for Congress was to work on legislation to address climate change on the national level. But in order to make any meaningful progress, we need to elect more Members of Congress who want to expand sustainable energy and address our climate crisis. That is why I am so grateful that Blue America is partnering with SEEC PAC to help these great candidates."

SEEC was founded in 2009 by now-Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) at the start of the 111th Congress and is now a key green voice in the Congress. Last Congress, the coalition introduced its Sustainable Infrastructure Proposal and has continued to call for an infrastructure bill that takes bold steps to address climate change. Through its advocacy efforts, SEEC has seen increased funding for clean energy programs at the Department of Energy and the inclusion of water sustainability policy in the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It also successfully opposed anti-environmental riders in the 2018 Farm Bill and focused early attention on the dangerous health consequences of Trump’s Clean Power Plan replacement. Another California SEEC member, Katie Porter told us today that "The climate crisis demands an all-hands-on-deck approach, and that includes strengthening our research in and use of green technology. We need allies in Congress who will fight for a more sustainable future and invest in the innovative clean energy we need to protect our planet."

Please consider helping elect new members of Congress who have prioritized the SEEC agenda in their campaigns and will be the kinds of allies Porter is talking about. Click on the thermometer on the right for the whole list-- and to contribute to the carefully and doubled-- vetted candidates, like Jon Hoadley, who is taking on Trump enabler and friend of polluters Fred Upton in southwest Michigan. Hoadley noted that "Michigan is the Great Lakes state, but we're still facing a drinking water crisis as a result of corporate pollution. We need to put an end to the large-scale contamination of our water and air we've seen from fossil fuel companies, and take bold action to preserve our climate for future generations."

Electing Kara Eastman to replace Trump puppet Donald Bacon in Omaha is a top priority for both SEEC PAC and Blue America. This morning she told us that "It's incredibly important to have the support of SEEC and Blue America because climate change is the number one national security threat to our country now, and it's the number one moral crisis facing America going forward. In Nebraska, we've fought against the Keystone XL Pipeline and successfully pushed our public power district to move to a carbon neutral plan. Let's turn up the heat on climate change together."

Mike Siegel's campaign has been almost an embodiment of the SEEC mission statement-- cleaning up the environment, ameliorating climate change and working with unions to guarantee good green jobs in the new economy. "I'm honored to have the support of SEEC and Blue America as we build a broad national coalition to combat climate change and build the renewable economy we need," he said this week. "As a Democrat running for Congress in the heart of Texas, I know how important it is that we take bold, courageous steps to address climate change and environmental degradation, even when those steps require difficult conversations with workers and businesses that depend on fossil fuel revenue. The Texas 10th Congressional District is already suffering from the impact of our fossil fuel economy. We have a coal plant in Fayette County that has been polluting the air and water for 40 years; we have widespread fracking operations that release chemicals into our groundwater and methane into our air; we have a Houston region that has suffered five 500-year flood events in five years; and we have Bastrop county, which was devastated by a massive wildfire nine years ago. These natural and unnatural disasters can all be traced to fossil fuel emissions. Even though Texas is built on a fossil fuel economy, we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend that change is not needed. I'm running for Congress to build an unparalleled coalition of unions, environmentalists, ranchers and farmers, progressives and activists of all types, to fight climate change, to create jobs in a renewable economy, and to address the legacy of pollution and environmental injustice. Thank you, SEEC and Blue America for your belief and support, and I look forward to joining with you in the days, months and years ahead, for the good of our planet, and for the good of our nation."

Audrey Denney is taking on Trumpist do-nothing Doug LaMalfa again in the northeast corner of California. She told us she's "honored to have the support of Congress' Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition! Human induced climate change is already here and we are living through the consequences. We can’t grow cherries in Butte county because there aren’t enough chill hours. Fire season is almost year round and our fires are burning hotter than ever before. In some cases creating their own weather. Through our horrific fires of the last two years my district became the face of this crisis. As evidenced by politicians on both sides of the aisle using our devastation for photo ops. But this district can become the face of the solution. I’m talking about restoring our forests to health so they become carbon sinks not sources. We’re talking about ag policy that equips and trains farmers to use practices that sequester carbon-- that actually turn the dial back on climate change. I cannot wait to get to Congress and work with the members of the SEEC to push this policy agenda forward!


 


UPDATE: Nate McMurray (NY-27)

"Receiving the support from SEEC and Blue America is not just important for my campaign but also for the people of the NY-27. Climate change is the most pressing environmental challenge facing our planet and communities in the U.S. and around the globe are already experiencing its impacts. We feel the impact of increasingly extreme weather quite dramatically in Western New York, the NY-27, where we live alongside not one, but two of the Great Lakes-- Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. So Western New Yorkers see every day, in every season that effects of decades of bad environmental policies. And finally people see that we have an obligation to ourselves, our children, and the states and our neighbor to the north, to take immediate action to address climate change’s threats to our economy, health, and environment. In Congress the NY-27 and I as their representative, will have great partners in SEEC and Blue America in the fight for the region's environmental priorities, like supporting 100% transition to clean energy by 2050, access to clean air and water as well as regionally funded initiatives such as the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Plan 2014, more conservation-focused planning by the Great Lakes' International Joint Commission, and improved Farming and Conservation initiatives. I cannot thank SEEC and Blue America enough for their support and belief in my campaign. We are on the cusp of victory and making a Democratic supermajority in Congress a reality in 2020!"

Here's How You Can Help Build Our Green Coalition

Blue America is working with our allies in Congress' Sustainable Energy And Environment Coalition Caucus [SEEC PAC], including old friends we've helped get elected and reelected like Matt Cartwright, Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal, Bonnie Watson-Coleman, Alan Lowenthal, Judy Chu, Ilhan Omar, Jim Himes, Barbara Lee, Earl Blumenauer, Steve Cohen, Raul Grijalva, Jerry McNerney, Nanette Barragan and Katie Porter.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), chair of Congress' Natural Resources Committee, told us yesterday that "Within the halls of Congress, no group is working harder than the SEEC Caucus to advance clean energy, climate change solutions, and environmental justice while protecting our air, water, wildlife, and public lands from the Trump administration." He further pointed out that "This work is powered by a grassroots network of people pitching in what they can to support this critical work." Blue America and SEEC PAC have teamed up to raise some last minute campaign contributions for candidates both our groups have endorsed:

• Nate McMurray (NY)
• Beth Doglio (WA)
• Marie Newman (IL)
• Julie Oliver (TX)
• Mike Siegel (TX)
• Kathy Ellis (MO)
• Audrey Denney (CA)
• Cathy Kunkel (WV)
• Jon Hoadley (MI)
• Kara Eastman (NE)
• Georgette Gomez (CA)
• Dana Balter (NY)

Let's face it, our planet is at stake in November. If we are going to build a better future for this generation and the next, there is no time to waste.

That's why SEEC PAC and Blue America have endorsed an incredible slate of leaders who will act on this issue. We can't give even an inch. It's essential that we expand our green coalition in the House and continue to push Congress to take up clean energy, climate resiliency, and environmental protections.

These green leaders can become Members of Congress-- with your help. Will you maximize your donation by contributing to these dually-endorsed candidates today?

The Trump administration spent four years taking a wrecking ball to environmental regulations. They hired oil and gas lobbyists and climate deniers to lead the federal agencies tasked with protecting our air, water, and public lands. They ignored the science while wildfires destroyed communities and hurricanes slammed our coasts.

It is going to take work to repair the damage of Donald Trump. We have to rebuild protections for our environment and ensure climate mitigation is a part of those conversations. We have to reinforce the government processes that allow us to protect the American people from reckless pollution and disregard of science and fact.

Climate change and environmental protection have been among the most important items Beth Doglio has attended to as a member of the Washington state legislature. As a congressional candidate, she told us that she's "So proud to have the endorsement of SEEC. My Govenor-- Jay Inslee- founded SEEC when he served in Congress. As a State Representative, I worked with  Governor Inslee to pass landmark policies addressing environmental issues in Washington. We passed a suite of climate policies moving our state to 100% clean electricity, making our existing commercial buildings more efficient and building our mass transit and vehicle/ferry electrification systems. We are on track to meet our greenhouse emission reduction goals in statute. I can't wait to work with SEEC membership to pass bold transformational policies that make the visionary Green New Deal our future."

Progressive Democrat Kathy Ellis told us this morning that she's "running for Congress in a largely rural, 30-county district in Missouri that's been decimated by climate change and deregulation. Our local economy is almost entirely based on the environment, whether it’s through farming, hospitality, or our incredible state parks and riverways. And yet, over the last ten years, we’ve seen the damage that a climate-denier congressman can have: our farmers have struggled greatly because of intense flooding on their farms, our local economy has suffered as a result, and deregulation has caused great pollution of our beautiful waterways-- all while Jason Smith votes against every bill that would tackle these problems. Having the support of SEEC means a great deal to me, as a pro-environment and pro-science candidate. Missouri’s 8th District deserves-- and desperately needs-- a representative who is ready to fight each and every day for legislation that will protect our environment, create jobs, and tackle some of the root causes of climate change. I’m ready to be that person, and I’m honored to have SEEC in this fight with me."

Syracuse area progressive Dana Balter was endorsed early on by both Blue America and the SEEC Caucus. She's a big fan of the fact that the Caucus "s leading the fight in Congress on bold, smart, and strategic clean energy policies. They've also played a critical role in opposing and highlighting the dangers of anti-environmental actions taken by the Trump administration. Rebuilding our economy from the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic gives us the opportunity to make a significant investment in clean energy jobs-- and the SEEC Caucus is working to make that a reality. Their leadership is invaluable, and I am deeply honored to have their support in this race."

It's going to take a strong green coalition in the House fighting every day to pass comprehensive climate legislation and hold Congress to account as climate change knocks at our door.

That's why SEEC PAC and Blue America endorsed green leaders running in close House races around the country. They're ready to act on climate on Day 1-- but first, they need your help to win their races!

Split a donation between SEEC PAC/Blue America endorsed candidates today to give these candidates a boost with less than 3 weeks before Election Day.

Mike Siegel just added something I want to share: ""I'm honored to have the support of SEEC and Blue America as we build a broad national coalition to combat climate change and build the renewable economy we need. As a Democrat running for Congress in the heart of Texas, I know how important it is that we take bold, courageous steps to address climate change and environmental degradation, even when those steps require difficult conversations with workers and businesses that depend on fossil fuel revenue. The Texas 10th Congressional District is already suffering from the impact of our fossil fuel economy. We have a coal plant in Fayette County that has been polluting the air and water for 40 years; we have widespread fracking operations that release chemicals into our groundwater and methane into our air; we have a Houston region that has suffered five 500-year flood events in five years; and we have Bastrop county, which was devastated by a massive wildfire nine years ago. These natural and unnatural disasters can all be traced to fossil fuel emissions. Even though Texas is built on a fossil fuel economy, we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend that change is not needed. I'm running for Congress to build an unparalleled coalition of unions, environmentalists, ranchers and farmers, progressives and activists of all types, to fight climate change, to create jobs in a renewable economy, and to address the legacy of pollution and environmental injustice. Thank you, SEEC and Blue America for your belief and support, and I look forward to joining with you in the days, months and years ahead, for the good of our planet, and for the good of our nation."

Flipping A Red District In The Middle Of Texas-- While Donald Debuts For The Village People

 

This ad the Sunrise Movement just released to assist Mike Siegel win TX-10 from Trump appendage Michael McCaul, is going to be part of the visual history of the 2020 election-- and one of the best ads of the year. The brand new polling released yesterday show Mike and McCaul tied. Hopefully the Sunrise Movement ad will help enthuse more voters to get out and support Mike. Although... Travis County, the biggest in Mike's district, doesn't need much more enthusiasm than it already has. According to the Austin American Statesman out the more than 850,000 eligible voters in the county, 97% of them are registered to vote. A little context:

• In 2016, Trump's share of the Travis County vote was 27.4%
• In 2018, Ted Cruz's share of the Travis County vote was 24.6%
• In 2018, Greg Abbott's share of the Travis County vote was 30.4%
• In 2018, the Travis County portion of TX-10 gave Mike Siegel a gigantic landslide-- D+44
• In 2018, the Travis County portion of TX-25 also gave Julie Oliver a big fat landslide-- D+30

Last go-round, without the kind of name recognition he has now, Siegel pulled between 72 and 73% of the Travis County vote. He is expected to do far better this time. In fact, private polling shows him neck and neck with McCaul in Bastrop County and significantly increasing his share of the vote in Harris and Waller counties. Now all the momentum is with Siegel. The newest poll shows him leading 94-0 among Democrats while McCaul leads 93-2 among Republicans. The most important number though is among Independents, a cohort that has supported McCaul in the past but now backs Siegel by a phenomenal 54-28%.

Yesterday, the first day of early voting in Texas, found gigantic lines in Travis County, with people willing to wait for long periods of time-- mostly to register their disapproval of Trump and his enablers. But don't let anyone tell you Trump doesn't have enthusiasm working for him too. This week at an airplane hangar in a small town in the middle of Florida, Trump fans were rockin' the house. Watch:





In 1978, when the Village People released Cruisin', Trump was 32, a NYC club rat whose after-dark headquarters was often Studio 54, where he was seen hob-sobbing with crooked local politicians, minor celebrities, hookers, drug dealers and, most of all, mobsters. Now a smash hit among the MAGA crowd, "YMCA," the double-entendre single from the album, was more than just the theme song for Trump's favorite disco. It was also the theme song for the gay movement of the 1970s. Nice to see that the 300 pound Trump, a very picture of lack of physical grace-- and still sick with COVID-- remembers how to shake his lard ass to the gayest song ever written (even though he was always seriously on the make and never actually danced at the disco).

Mike And Julie, The Key To Winning Back Texas

 

Republicans have controlled Texas for too long and have grown comfortable enough to overlook arrogance and embrace corruption. It's time for them to be put out to pasture. Many Texas voters-- particularly in the suburbs and exurbs around Dallas-Ft Worth, Houston, Austin and San Antonio-- are sick of Trump and giving up on his enablers. And whether Biden wins the state's 38 electoral votes or not, Texas is likely to flip as many as half a dozen congressional seats and possibly the state House as well.

Today, as the election barrels towards a denouement, we want to focus on the two most important congressional candidates running in Texas, Mike Siegel (TX-10) and Julie Oliver (TX-25), each in a gerrymandered district carved out of Travis County (Austin) and meant to dilute the votes of Austin Democrats by including rural and suburban counties that were GOP safe zones when the districts were drawn. Those safe zones are no longer safe and both Siegel and Oliver made tremendous headway against the GOP incumbents in 2018. Each is back to finish the job in November.

And each is polling so strongly that a reluctant DCCC-- never eager to endorse outright progressives in "red" districts-- was forced to add both Siegel and Oliver to their Red to Blue list this month. This morning, Siegel told us how clearly he understands the stakes. "When I beat Michael McCaul on November 3," he said, "it will send shockwaves through the political establishment. I'm running hard on the Green New Deal, to create millions of jobs while addressing climate change and the legacy of environmental racism. And when I defeat one of the wealthiest members of Congress, a person who has more money personally invested in oil and gas than any person in the House or Senate, in a district specifically gerrymandered to protect him (because his father-in-law is a media empire billionaire), and in a district that contains numerous fossil fuel concerns in the Houston "oil patch"-- that victory will make history. It will help to dispel this idea that to flip a red seat you need to be 'moderate.' It will show that progressive policies like the Green New Deal are winning issues BECAUSE they are bold, because they meet the scale of the crises we face. This victory will be about more than one seat, it will be about the movement.





Siegel, a civil rights attorney and a life-long union guy, is all about solidarity. He was quick to turn the conversation towards his neighbor and fellow-progressive. "And the same goes for my compatriot Julie Oliver. She is probably the most articulate House challenger right now when it comes to Medicare for All. Because of her personal story and her family's struggles with health care companies, and also because of her work as a lawyer with intricate knowledge of health insurance and spending, she is the perfect advocate for a national, comprehensive, single-payer healthcare system. And her opponent is a caricature of a wealthy, bigoted, out-of-touch Texas Republican. Who would you rather have as a representative, a grifting car salesman or a healthcare advocate and mom who is unafraid to knock every door in her 13-county district, who has fought for Medicare for All even when it wasn't universally popular, and who continues to lead on the most important issue during a national health crisis? I'll take Julie, thank you very much!"

He concluded that "The two of us-- staunch progressives who have built powerful campaigns that are even winning support from the political establishment-- have the opportunity to change the narrative of Texas politics. We can help usher in a new wave of progressivism in the South. As Bernie's recent town hall said, 'As Texas goes, so does America.' So let's make that real-- and win in November!"

Please consider contributing what you can to both Mike Siegel and Julie Oliver by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Texas thermometer on the right. Julie told us that "As the mother of a kid with pre-existing conditions and as someone with 20 years of experience in the healthcare industry, I understand exactly how the healthcare industry has failed Texans, how we can fund it more equitably and responsibly, and how our own Republican members of Congress worked to undermine care for millions of Americans. Both Roger Williams and Mike's Republican opponent Michael McCaul have voted more than 50 times to take healthcare from millions of Americans, including cancer patients, sick children, the elderly, and people with disabilities right here in Texas. They've voted at least ten times to end protections for people with pre-existing conditions, like the one my son has. So for me--just as it is for hundreds of thousands of people here in our district whose healthcare is threatened by our own Congressman--this was deeply personal."

As much about solidarity as Siegel, she said that "both Mike and I believe that real change is never top-down-- it is built and informed by Texas communities. That is why both of us have run such organizing-first, grassroots campaigns, with an emphasis on coalition building, working in solidarity with communities that the political status quo has ignored for too long-- whether that's blue collar Texans who haven't seen a pay increase; those who are being priced out of their own communities due to the soaring costs of healthcare, tuition, and housing; or the communities in Texas most severely impacted by climate change. And the natural byproduct of actually showing up and listening to the people that Congress is supposed to serve-- not corporations, not DC elites-- is that we're rooting out corruption and ending the era of pay-for-play politics. Both Mike and I are political outsiders. I'm confident that neither of us can be arm-twisted behind closed doors, and we're not afraid to stand up to corrupt politicians and special interests. For too long, career politicians like Roger Williams and Michael McCaul have taken advantage of hardworking families while they use their office to enrich themselves. And it's time for real, positive change for Texas."





Last week, one of Texas' sharpest reporters, Abby Livingston, wrote that another Texas congressional candidate-- neither a real progressive nor a conservative but more of a moderate-- Wendy Davis, who was slaughtered in her 2014 in her high-profile run for governor, was thinking a lot about why she lost by 20 points but 4 years later Beto O'Rourke lost by just 2.5 points in his statewide race against Ted Cruz. Livingston wrote that Davis figured it out: in "2018 there was a robust lineup of Democratic candidates down ballot running for the U.S. House, the state Legislature and other local campaigns. That wasn’t the case in 2014. Those candidates knocked on doors, raised money, showed up to Rotary Club meetings and de-stigmatized Democrats in once-hostile territory. Some even won. Davis said those down-ballot races were key to O’Rourke’s performance." Beto agrees.

Livingston's point is that Biden's fate in Texas next month "could rest on the backs of dozens of mostly obscure Democratic candidates who are competing for legislative and congressional seats in the suburbs that have been strongly Republican... And with more national and local money pouring into those down-ballot races, political experts say that could have a major effect upstream on the ballot. 'Normally, House and down-ballot candidates are desperate for presidential investment,' said Amy Walter, a political analyst at the Cook Political Report. 'In this case, I think that all the money being poured into suburban [congressional districts] and battleground state [legislative] districts could help boost Biden.'"

Many Republican Candidates Are Paralyzed With Fear-- Fear Of Normal Voters On The One Hand And Fear Of Trump And His Element On The Other

 

Trump isn't dead yet and hasn't used his COVID diagnosis as an excuse for backing out of the race. He insists otherwise, but he was hurt badly by Tuesday's debate. This is very typical post-debate polling coverage: "Trump hurt himself more than his rival with Tuesday night's theatrics in what's been called the worst U.S. presidential debate in history."

Now, try to imagine the "Fake News" tantrum the criminally, clinically insane Donald must have thrown Wednesday night when he saw Gabe Sherman's Vanity Fair report, "The Family Is Worried Brad Will Start Talking": TrumpWorld Panics Over Debate Fiasco As Campaign Turmoil Mounts. It sounds pretty dire: "Over three days, the New York Times dropped a tax bombshell, Florida cops cuffed Brad Parscale, and the president just couldn’t help himself onstage. 'Trump didn’t win over any voters,' said a prominent Republican, 'and he pissed off a lot of people.'"

Sherman asserts that while the campaign is still assessing the political damage from the debate, particularly Trump's "refusal to condemn white supremacists," the Orange blot "didn't win over any voters, and he pissed off a lot of people."

Worse yet, "Republicans are resigned to the fact that Trump is unlikely-- or unwilling-- to course-correct. 'Trump thinks he won. He didn’t,' said another Republican with ties to the campaign. 'But does anyone have the balls to tell him that? No. They’d be fired.'"

Trump doesn’t accept the consensus that the debate was a disaster because, sources said, he was unabashedly himself. “The thing about the debate is people got to see why no one that has any integrity can work for Trump. This is what Trump is like in the Oval Office every day. It’s why [John] Kelly left. It’s why [Jim] Mattis quit,” said the prominent Republican. “Trump doesn’t let anyone else speak. He really doesn’t care what you have to say. He demeans people. He talks over them. And everyone around him thinks it’s getting worse.”

Inside Trumpworld there’s a view that the past week is an inflection point in the campaign. It started on Sunday night with the bombshell New York Times report that Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017. “For Trump the Times story was worse than losing reelection,” said the second Republican. “If you had told Donald back in 2015 that his tax returns would be exposed and he’d have all these investigations, I guarantee you he wouldn’t have run.”

As the Times story lit up cable news and Twitter, news broke that Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale had been taken into custody outside his Ft. Lauderdale home and hospitalized after threatening to commit suicide and allegedly beating his wife days prior. Police body camera footage showing an officer brutally tackling a shirtless, 6’8” Parscale to the pavement instantly became a visual metaphor for the chaos engulfing the Trump campaign. One campaign adviser I spoke with was shocked by the amount of force the police used to subdue and cuff Parscale. “If Brad had been Black, there would be riots all over the country,” the source said. (In fact, police have killed unarmed Black men in far less hostile situations.)

Parscale’s public meltdown happened while he is reportedly under investigation for stealing from the Trump campaign and the RNC. According to the source close to the campaign, the Trump family is worried that Parscale could turn on them and cooperate with law enforcement about possible campaign finance violations. “The family is worried Brad will start talking,” the source said.

And the shit show is just getting started... for Republicans who have earned-- and continue to earn-- every bit of it. Writing for the Washington Post, Robert Costa and Matt Viser reported that the aftermath of the debate "triggered a reckoning among Republicans on Wednesday about the incumbent’s incendiary remarks on white supremacy and his baseless claims of electoral fraud, with GOP officials privately expressing alarm about the fallout with key voters." Republican elected officials, though, were muted, tepid and largely non-existent "reflecting how the GOP remains convinced that an alliance with Trump and his voters is crucial for its survival. But hewing too close to him is also seen as a mistake by some Republicans, particularly for those who wish to court moderates and independent voters."

Utterly out-of-touch, brow furrowed, Susan Collins, who is losing her reelection bid to an uninspiring moderate Democrat, made the probably-fatal error of telling reporters that "There was fault on both sides. The interrupting on both sides, the name-calling was very unbecoming for a presidential debate." When pressed, she admitted it was "a mistake" for Donald to not condemn the Proud Boys and his other white supremicist supporters.

Tim Scott (R-SC) is the only black Republican in the Senate. (He was appointed.) He say Trump "misspoke" and "should correct it. If he doesn’t correct it, I guess he didn’t misspeak." That was about as close to a rebuke Donald got from a Republican senator-- and Scott isn't up for reelection in November. Donald's post-debate attempt at a "correction" was to lie to the media and claim he doesn't know who the Proud Boys are. "I mean, you’ll have to give me a definition, because I really don’t know who they are. I can only say they have to stand down. Let law enforcement do their work." Yeah, so I guess he didn't misspeak.

Trump’s comments did little to encourage Republicans about the political turbulence they face in the final stretch of the campaign as Trump seizes on matters of race and urban unrest and unfounded allegations of voter fraud.

“This election is drifting toward what feels like a blowout [victory for Biden], and there needs to be some type of event that changes that. The debate was a chance to change the direction, and while it might be too early to be seen, there is no real reason to believe it was a game-changer,” said Brendan Buck, a former top adviser to the past two Republican House speakers, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and John Boehner of Ohio.

Former senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), a Trump critic who stays in touch with former colleagues, said the private alarm in Senate GOP circles “is palpable.”

“People are voting already, so they know it’s going to be tough to put forward a new narrative,” Flake said. “They’re more than a little worried because it feels like even if you go in a different direction, it’d be too little, too late. That’s devastating.”

Polling shows the GOP Senate majority at risk with strongholds in the Deep South, such as South Carolina and Georgia, highly competitive. A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday shows Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and former South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Jaime Harrison tied as Graham seeks a fourth term in the Senate.

One veteran Republican Senate strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are working on a Senate campaign, said, “We’re all kind of prepared to be responsible for our own performances and our own words. You’re not going to see anybody say it was a bad performance, but they’ll consider it like Trump’s really crazy tweets. They’ll say, ‘That’s not my kind of campaign, didn’t really see it.’”

The strategist added that several campaigns are already deliberating on how to address Proud Boys questions at upcoming Senate debates and are trying to figure out how to deflect the issue and shift to more favorable topics.

At the Capitol on Wednesday, where Senate Republicans are working swiftly to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, reactions ranged from venting about the debate to sidestepping challenges to Trump.

“It was awful,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told reporters, while Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) offered a descriptive expletive.

“I was actually watching the Yankees,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD). When asked if he was disturbed by Trump’s response to the Proud Boys question, Rounds said, “He should have been very clear,” whether talking about “far-left” groups or “far-right” groups.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is in a difficult reelection race, said of Trump’s handling of the Proud Boys question: “I’ll leave it to the president. I know he’s not racist. I’m sure he doesn’t approve of their activities.”

Like Collins, Tillis is being challenged by an uninspiring moderate-to-conservative establishment Democrat and, like Collins, Tillis is losing his reelection bid. The Real Clear Politics polling average shows Cunningham ahead by a daunting 6 points. And the most recent poll, by YouGov for CBS News, sounds like a death knell for Tillis. Cunningham is beating him 48% to 38%-- ten points!

And right on cue, Sabato's Crystal Ball stepped a little closer to reality-- just a little-- in its predictions for November. Cory Gardner hasn't had a shot for reelection for over a year and Sabato's outfit seems to have almost figured it out, moving its rating from "leans Democratic" to "likely Democratic." On November 4th they will move it to "safe Democratic." They seem to be recognizing that Al Gross is going to beat Trumpist coward Dan Sullivan in Alaska, moving Sullivan's reelection bid from "likely Republican" to "lean Republican." And in House races they made 12 changes-- all but one in favor of Democratic candidates. And the one was just a reflection of Sabato's unwillingness to understand what the nature of a wave is when even shit candidates like worthless New Dem T.J. Cox, are swept across the finish line by voters who want to see the enemy-- this year Republicans-- vanquished.





Sabato shows 30 Republican-held seats on the verge of flipping-- and that includes career-ending defeats for 18 House Republican incumbents. Blue America House candidates most likely to win next month-- according to Sabato's predictions-- are Jon Hoadley (MI-06), Kara Eastman (NE-02), Dana Balter (NY-24) and Mike Siegel (TX-10). The only Democrats Sabato sees in actual jeopardy are half a dozen Blue Dogs and New Dems: T.J. Cox (CA), Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL), Collin Peterson (MN), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Max Rose (NY) and Kendra Horn (OK), the last 4 of whom the Democratic Party would be much better off without. My suggestion to people who want their contributions to go to candidates on the verge of winning-- and just using Sabato's criteria-- but who need that extra little push: click on the Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right and give $10 each to Kara Eastman, Mike Siegel and Jon Hoadley. BONUS: here's Mike Siegel speaking at an online Bernie congressional fundraiser Wednesday evening:

A Duty To The Country? To The American People? To History? To Your Own Conscience?

 

Like by Nancy Ohanian

Everyone has to make those decisions for him- or herself. If you've heard me on Nicole Sander's or David Feldman's shows recently, you've probably heard me talking about A French Village, and about how each of us may have to decide where we are on a spectrum that goes from enthusiastic collaboration with fascism to violent resistance to it, just as the characters in the TV series were forced to. History Professor Walter Moss noted that Americans, "never having lived under military occupation by a hostile foreign power... have little appreciation for how complex everyday life could become under such conditions. Although most people would like to think that they would resist the Nazi invaders and not cooperate with them in any way, the reality for occupied peoples-- under the Germans and other occupiers-- was usually much more varied. FV depicts this well. Some collaborated; some cooperated partly; only a small minority engaged in active resistance."

It becomes even more nuanced, of course, when it isn't a foreign occupation but a fascist coup we have to decide how to position ourselves for or against. It hasn't come to that yet... but for many ex-Trump staffers, there is a decision they have to make now... or not make. AP reporter Jill Colvin wrote yesterday that "With just weeks left before the Nov. 3 election, now is the moment of truth for current and former Trump administration officials debating whether they, too, should step forward and join the chorus of Republican voices trying to persuade on-the-fence voters to help deny Trump a second term." After all, according to former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, Miles Taylor, Trump was routinely asking aides to break the law, using his former agency for explicitly political purposes, and wanting to maim and shoot migrants trying to cross the southern border. Taylor said that "Those who witnessed the president’s unfitness for office up close have a moral obligation to share their assessment with the electorate."

Other prominent “formers” have spoken out independently-- or are considering it.

Former national security adviser John Bolton wrote a scathing book in which he said Trump “saw conspiracies behind rocks, and remained stunningly uninformed” on how to run the government. Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis broke a self-imposed vow of silence in June with an op-ed slamming Trump’s response to racial justice protests. He and former director of national intelligence Dan Coats also were quoted extensively in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward calling Trump dangerous and unfit for office.

But Mattis and Coats, like former White House chief of staff John Kelly and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster, have refrained from more explicit condemnations, often citing a “duty of silence” or a long tradition of military officials staying out of politics, according to people who’ve spoken with them.

Efforts to draw them out are ongoing. While former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen appears disinclined to step forward, there are hopes that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson might be persuaded to comment and that Coats might be urged to say more. And Kelly, a retired four-star general, is said to be on the fence and torn about the decision.

“I think that he loves his country and he wants to do what’s best for the country,” said Neumann, who served as Kelly’s deputy chief of staff at DHS and is hopeful he’ll speak out, even as others don’t think it will happen.

Officials like Kelly, with long careers and hefty pensions, would seem to have less to lose by doing so than more junior staffers like Olivia Troye, a former counterterrorism adviser to Vice President Mike Pence who last week joined the campaign against Trump and said she’d be voting for Biden.

In a video and interviews, Troye has accused Trump of mishandling the coronavirus and being more concerned about his reelection prospects than saving lives. The White House punched back with an aggressive attack campaign aimed at discrediting her through a barrage of statements, interviews and denunciations from the lectern in the White House briefing room.

“These are not profiles in courage, but these are profiles in cowardice,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said of Troye and Taylor, dismissing them as part of a “fringe club of, quote, ‘Never Trumpers’ who are desperate for relevancy.”

Taylor said it was clear the White House was “coming after” those who speak out as a warning to others who are considering doing likewise.

“The White House knows if they show this is a very costly thing to do they will scare people from going forward,” he said.

He added that while more people are still considering coming forward, the White House tactics have worked to some extent-- dissuading one senior official who had been on the cusp of speaking out.

Rick Wilson, a longtime Republican strategist who co-founded the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, stressed that time is running out.

“There will be a cottage industry when Trump is out of office of people who say, ‘Oh, I fought from the inside, I fought the good fight, I kept so many bad things from happening.’” he said. “It doesn’t matter. There’s only one moment in time where it matters. And that’s now.”





...Anthony Scaramucci, who turned against the president last year after a short stint as White House communications director, has also been in discussions with those on the fence and is using every channel he can find to spread his message, including a new anti-Trump documentary.

“We have to keep the pressure on, and so for me it’s a multimedia approach. It’s radio, it’s podcasts, it’s Twitter, it’s television and it’s movies,” he said. “As a citizen all I’ve tried to do is provide a surgeon general’s warning... This guy is a threat to the institutions of democracy, and I worked for him and I think it’s important to send a signal to other people,” he said, that it’s OK to speak out.

And a lot is going to fall on Biden's shoulders, shoulder's I'm afraid not up to the task. In his NY Times OpEd yesterday, How To Debate Someone Who Lies, psychiatrist Richard Friedman offered Biden some advice: "Don’t waste your time fact-checking the president. If you attempt to counter every falsehood or distortion that Mr. Trump serves up, you will cede control of the debate. And, by trying to correct him, you will paradoxically strengthen the misinformation rather than undermine it. (Research shows that trying to correct a falsehood with truth can backfire by reinforcing the original lie.) Instead, Mr. Biden should use more powerful weapons that will put Mr. Trump on the defensive-- and also tell the audience that the president is a dishonest narrator. The first weapon may be the most effective: humor and ridicule. A derisive joke can defuse tense and outrageous situations. In 2007, for example, protesters dressed as clowns confronted a 'white power' march in Charlotte, N.C., holding signs that read 'wife power' and throwing white flour in the air. It made the white nationalists look ridiculous and avoided a violent confrontation, which would have served the interests of the racists."

I doubt Biden would dare, but he should only refer to Trump as "Donald," which drives him up the wall and would cause a complete crackup tomorrow night.

Trump Biden Debate by Nancy Ohanian

Last night I was talking with Mike Siegel, the progressive working to replace Trump ally Michael McCaul in a gerrymandered central Texas district. Defeating Trumpist enablers like McCaul is what's going to make all the difference in 2021. Mike told me his team is "this close to defeating one of the wealthiest and most reactionary members of Congress because we are running a people-powered, populist campaign that speaks to the needs of the people in this moment of overlapping crises. We are fighting for universal health care during a pandemic, a Green New Deal in response to massive unemployment and climate disasters, a renewed Voting Rights Act to battle massive voter suppression, and other programs to guarantee equality, dignity and justice for all. This poll will help us raise additional resources and win new sources of support, all in support of a transformational movement to flip a seat and usher in a new era of representation that is close to the ground and responsive to the people."

YES!!! We're in! Please contribute to Mike's campaign here. But how does Mike know he's close to beating McCaul? Once you leave Austin, it's a pretty red district. He shared a polling memo with me and said it was ok to run it on DWT. These are the key findings-- and from a relatively conservative sample of voters:

The TX-10 rematch between Mike Siegel and Michael McCaul is very close as we head into the final 5 weeks of the 2020 election. There has been notable movement in the race since our previous poll conducted at the beginning of August. Siegel has gained 4 points during these past 7 weeks, and now trails McCaul 45 to 43 percent (with Libertarian Roy Eriksen receiving 6 percent). The 2-point gap also reflects a narrowing of the 2018 result when McCaul won by 4 points, and Siegel is well-positioned to continue making gains as voters engage and the statewide environment further improves for Joe Biden.

The movement in the Congressional race is consistent with movement taking place at the top of the ticket in this rapidly changing district. In fact, TX-10 is a reflection of what is happening around the country as voters of color and college educated voters are forming a powerful Democratic coalition that is transforming districts that have been held for years by Republicans and are now becoming Democratic. While Obama lost the district by 21 points to Romney in 2012, Clinton cut that margin to 9 points against Trump in 2016, and O’Rourke tied against Cruz in 2018. In our latest poll, Biden is tied with Trump and has gained 4 points since August.

The following findings are based on a survey of 400 registered voters who are likely to cast ballots in the November election. The survey was conducted September 21-September 24, 2020 with live dialers to both landlines and cell phones, and is subject to a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval.

Key Findings:

• The political environment has improved for Democrats over the past 7 weeks, and the Presidential and House races are shifting toward Biden and Siegel. Biden gained 4 points in his race with Trump, and Siegel gained 4 points in his race with McCaul. Biden is now tied with Trump in the district, and Siegel is down by 2 points against McCaul (45 to 43 percent).
• Siegel’s coalition reflects the power of the political and demographic changes in the district. TX-10 has a very diverse electorate that is comprised of white (69 percent), Hispanic (13 percent), African American (11 percent), and AAPI voters (3 percent). Siegel is winning by large margins among voters of color, as well as with white college educated voters.

• College educated: Siegel 48 / McCaul 42
• College educated women: Siegel 57 / McCaul 35
• Voters of color: Siegel 60 / McCaul 26
• Independents: Siegel 46 / McCaul 36

• Siegel demonstrates his durability by maintaining positive favorability amid McCaul launching television and digital ads attacking him. Siegel has a +6 favorability rating (32 percent favorable / 26 percent unfavorable), which is particularly notable given the advertising on broadcast television that McCaul has run against him prior to Siegel launching his own television campaign. Siegel entered this race with high name ID for a challenger, which has helped him sustain his strength against McCaul’s efforts.
• The bottom line: this is a very close race, and real movement is taking place in a state undergoing profound political change. The survey shows that healthcare remains a very powerful issue, just as it had been in 2018 when two Texas districts flipped to Democrats and several others – such the Siegel-McCaul race – were decided by only a few points. McCaul is particularly vulnerable on his votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and voters express strong opposition to his healthcare positions that continue in the middle of this pandemic. Once again, Siegel is in a neck-and-neck race with McCaul-- and this time with a stronger wind at his back-- and TX-10 is a serious pick-up opportunity for Democrats.

As Rich Benjamin reminded Intercept readers yesterday "In order to win this presidential contest, liberals need to accept that Trump supporters do not care if he were to scrap millions of mail-in votes or to welcome, and even solicit, Russian interference for his cause. Not only do some Trump supporters understand that he is an autocrat who will cheat the rules to stay in power, that’s precisely what they like about him. The left should understand that many Trump supporters inherently believe that they would fare better under an autocratic system of white supremacy than under a multiracial democracy... Questioning all that fervent, widespread Trump support would force them to question how their neighbor, their cousin, their uncle, their co-worker, their favorite vendor is complicit to a regime that prioritizes their well-being and social privilege as white people, second only to Trump’s greed. To acknowledge your aunt’s or your own complicity in Trump’s nationalist autocracy might make you feel accountable for what this country is. And that accountability to the problem damns you to an accountability to the solution... Wealth redistribution to the top, privatization, extreme incoming inequality, and ruling kleptocracy: Such are the hallmarks of this regime’s totalitarian capitalism, one that exploits catastrophe to further undercut a fair economy, a robust middle class, and truly representative democracy."