I See A Huge Anti-Red Wave Forming Up, Preparing To Sweep More Republicans Out Of Congress

On Monday, John Heilemann told the Morning Joe crew "When you have a moment that becomes the fodder for universal late night comedy-- the kind of thing that everybody, even the most apolitical Americans understand-- that's a devastating moment... Even Trump, I think, has finally started to hear from enough Republicans-- 'Dude, you are killin' us. You are killing yourself politically and not only are you killing yourself but you are killing us. We could lose the Senate; we could lose the White House; we could lose it all'... It's a big moment, I think politically, because you see Republicans going 'Wow, we have some big problems here.'"

And notice he didn't even mention the House. The Republicans were never realistic if they thought they would win back the House-- but they were at least talking about it. Now, the only ones who ever even bring it up are the sad sacks at the NRCC whose livelihoods depend on at least pretending they have a shot at some victories. But the chances of the GOP losing another 2 dozen seats are greater than the chances of the Republicans even winning back six seats!

On Monday morning, the NRCC put out a press release that was one in a series of "nothing serious going on here" moments-- McCarthy Adds Candidates to 2020 Young Guns Program. Maybe McCarthy should be considering changing the name of the ill-starred program. Both his co-founders are now gone-- Paul Ryan driven out of Congress by Trump and Eric Cantor defeated by a psychotic teabagger who subsequently lost the R+6 Virginia district to a third-rate Blue Dog. McCarthy has watched the districts around his in California turn blue and he's probably got another 3 cycles before the demographic changes in CA-23 make it untenable for GOP candidates. Instead, McCarthy is throwing millions at trying to win back 3 neighboring seats Republicans are unlikely to ever win again-- CA-21, CA-24 and CA-25, all with second-rate candidates. He immediately put 2 into this cycle's Young Guns: last year's loser David Valadao, and newbie Mike Garcia. Besides the two of them, McCarthy added two other Californians-- Young Kim (CA-39) and Michelle Steel (CA-48)-- as well as three Texans: Wesley Hunt (TX-07), Beth Van Duyne (TX-24) and Genevieve Collins (TX-32).

GOP fundraising hasn't looked great in any of the districts. Valadao (CA-21) was outraised by T.J. Cox $1,953,626 to $1,692,230. Garcia (CA-25) is running in an open seat but the weak Democrat the party shoved down voters' throats, Christy Smith, is tying him in fundraising-- $1.8 million each (although Garcia had to contribute $100,000 of his own cash to stay even with her). One of the Democrats weakest and least electable incumbents, useless New Dem Gil Cisneros, hasn't even started self-funding yet (he spent $9,252,762 to buy the seat in 2018) and he's still running ahead of the GOP's failed 2018 candidate, Young Kim and has over a million dollars more than her in his campaign war chest. CA-48 is the reddest of the California districts they're chasing (PVI is R+4) and the incumbent freshman, Harley Rouda, is another pointless, weak New Dem who should be, on paper, a great target. But, like the others, not with Trump at the top of the ticket. Michelle Steel has raised $2.1 million (although $726,740 came out of her personal bank account) to Rouda's $3 million. Rouda, who used $9,252,762 of his own in 2018 to buy the seat, hasn't done any self-funding at all this cycle.

The 3 Texans are being out-fundraised as well. Wesley Hunt (TX-07) has brought in 2,195,206 against weak Democratic incumbent Lizzie Fletcher's $3,293,441. Genevieve Collins has brought in $1,635,533 ($380,00 self funded) against Colin Allred's 2,936,696. And the open seat in the 24th district shows Democrat Kim Olson outraising Beth Van Duyne $1,223,200 to $1,004,955.

Wonderring how Trump did in these districts that the NRCC decided were its 7 best shots in the U.S.? Trump lost 6 of the 7 districts. The first number is Trump's percentage in 2016 and the second number (in parentheses) is how the GOP candidate did in 2018:

• CA-21-- 39.7% (49.6%)
• CA-25-- 43.6% (45.6%)
• CA-39-- 42.9% (48.4%)
• CA-48-- 46.2% (46.4%)
• TX-07-- 47.1% (47.5%)
• TX-24-- 50.7% (50.6%)
• TX-32-- 46.6% (45.8%)

So next came the second-tier and third candidates the GOP put forward yesterday, a desperate attempt to make it look like the staffers are doing something useful. There are 14 supposedly "on the radar candidates" and 17 not quite-but-maybe-who-knows. The 14 second tier candidates are:

• Tiffany Shedd (AZ-01) vs Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran or Eva Putzova (R+2)
• Leo Valentin (FL-07) vs Blue Dog Stephanie Murphy (even PVI)
• William Figlesthaler (FL-19)-- open seat with 3 NRCC endorsees (R+13)
• Carlos Gimenez (FL-26) vs New Dem Mucarsel-Powell (D+6)
• Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02), a serial vanity candidate-- open seat (D+1)
• Jeanne Ives (IL-06) vs New Dem Sean Casten (R+2)
• Esther Joy King (IL-17) vs Blue Dog/DCCC chair Cheri Bustos (D+3)
• Sara Hart Weir (KS-03) vs New Dem Sharice Davids; NRCC has backed 2 candidates (R+4)
• Paul Junge (MI-08) vs New Dem Elissa Slotkin (R+4)
• Michelle Fischbach (MN-07)- vs Collin Peterson (R+12)
• Jimmy Crumpacker and Knute Buehler (OR-02)-- open seat (R+11)
• Scott Taylor (VA-02) vs Elaine Luria re-match; 2 NRCC endorsees (R+3)
• Nick Freitas (VA-07) vs Blue Dog Abigail Spanberger (+ 3 other "endorsed "Republican challengers) (R+6)

And the really laughable sad-sacks that the NRCC basically gave showing up pats on the head but who will get no loot and no love.

• Noran Ruden (AZ-02) vs alcoholic New Dem Ann Kirkpatrick (R+1)
• Anna Luna (FL-13) vs Blue Dog Charlie Crist (D+2)
• Byron Donalds and Casey Askar (FL-19)-- open seat (R+13)
• Rich McCormick (GA-07)-- open seat with 3 candidates the NRCC has backed (R+9)
• Beth Henderson (IN-05)-- open seat with 3 candidates the NRCC has backed (R+9)
• Lisa McClain (MI-10)-- open seat with 3 candidates the NRCC has backed (R+13)
• Tyler Kistner (MN-02) vs New Dem Angie Craig (R+9)
• Matt Mayberry and Matt Mowers (NH-01) vs New Dem Chris Pappas (R+2)
• David Richter (NJ-03) vs Andy Kim (R+2)
• Andrew Garbarino and Mike LiPetri (NY-02)-- open seat (R+3)
• Jim Bognet and Earl Granville (PA-08) vs Matt Cartwright (R+1)
• Benito Loyola (VA-02) vs New Dem Elaine Luria and NRCC has also endorsed Scott Taylor for a re-match (R+3)
• Derrick Van Orden (WI-03) vs New Dem Ron Kind (PVI is even)

Most of the Democratic incumbents are dog-shit and the territory is pretty red but with Trump at the top of the ticket, this cycle, Democrats will be heavily favored in what is shaping up to be another strong anti-red wave (that the media morons will soon be calling a Blue Wave). Republicans can take heart. They'll probably win back most of their losses in the 2022 midterms, especially if the Biden administration is as useless and pathetic as I expect it to be.

Trump And The DCCC Are Turning NJ-02 Into A Political Cesspool Already

Van Drew was always a Republican-- and now it's official

In the 2018 cycle, conservative then-"Democrat" Jeff Van Drew wasn’t one of the party’s star fundraisers, although he did bring in $1,881,731, despite a very right-wing voting record in the Jersey state legislature. The 3 other successful challengers in New Jersey that year all did significantly better than Van Drew did:

• Andy Kim (NJ-03)- $6,339,770
• Tom Malinowski (NJ-07)- $6,254,566
• Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)- $8,489,793

And so far this cycle, all were beating Van Drew as well, Democratic donors being unimpressed with Van Drew's repulsive record in the House and his virtual residency at Fox News.

• Jeff Van Drew (NJ-02)- $1,276,316
• Andy Kim (NJ-03)- $1,700,707
• Tom Malinowski (NJ-07)- $1,720,429
• Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)- $1,841,106

And then Trump lured Van Drew into switching parties, promising him an active endorsement, not just against whichever Democrat wins the primary, but also against the 3 Republicans who had been running all year by screeching that Van Drew is a “Socialist!!!” and a Nancy Pelosi lover. And Trump promised money and staff. A Trump SuperPAC has already injected $250,000 into the race and, on Trump's command, the GOP sent over two notorious Jersey GOP sleaze bags to run his campaign, Bill Stepien and Ron Filan.

The Republicans running against him hadn’t raised much money and will in all likelihood now see all sources of funds, other than their own bank accounts, dry up entirely.

• David Richter- $412,760 of which $300,000 was self funded
• Bob Paterson- $100,342
• Brian Fitzherbert- $21,287

Since Van Drew is now being considered a Republican incumbent, the NRCC version of the Cheri Bustos rule applies. Anyone who works for a campaign challenging him-- even though they had been encouraged to work for that campaign until 2 weeks ago-- will be blackballed by RepublicanWorld. (Note: people like Cheri Bustos should not be part of Democratic Party leadership. Except for identity politics issues, she’s a Republican from her toes to the top of her head.)

Politico has been helping rewrite history and has participated in twisting the Van Drew story entirely. Matt Freidman wrote that Van Drew “had been planning to seek reelection as a Democrat.” That was once true, but not since Van Drew decided to vote against impeaching Trump. It was then that he saw his support starting to plunge and it was then that more observant observers noted that Van Drew would be running for reelection as a Republican-- not after the vote. into in the 20s when he announced he would vote against impeaching Trump. The head of the biggest county Democratic Party in his district warned that if he voted for impeachment he’d be toast 2 weeks earlier. Freidman wrote that “After a frantic and unsuccessful effort to shore up party support-- Democratic leaders were abandoning him-- Van Drew switched to the GOP and, in a formal announcement, pledged his ‘undying support’ to Trump as he sat next to the president in the Oval Office.” The die had been cast when Van Drew was on Fox before the impeachment vote using GOP talking points to deride Democrats and belittle the whole reason for impeachment.

The presumed front-runner before the big switch was David Richter, former CEO of a family-founded company, Hill International. “Richter,” wrote Freidman, “quickly found his top political consultants and much of his staff leaving his campaign so as not to alienate the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is backing the newly-minted GOP incumbent. ‘The NRCC basically pulled them in and said, You need to be working for a Republican incumbent, and if you work for a Republican running against an incumbent, you’ll essentially be blackballed from doing further work,’ Richter said. Chris Russell, who had been one of Richter’s consultants, said his firm’s decision not to work against a party-endorsed incumbent was ‘our choice’ because ‘we felt it was a conflict.’ NRCC spokesperson Michael McAdams said in a statement the committee ‘doesn’t blacklist consultants.’” The DCCC, pre-Bustos, used to say the same thing. It was never true, although it was Bustos who made it formal.

In his piece, Freidman put of NRCC propaganda that Van Drew is the local boy and that the other three Republicans are carpetbaggers. “The other three Republicans claim connection to the district, though they have all recently lived somewhere else.”

Richter was a longtime Princeton resident, which is far outside the district, and rented a home less than two years ago in Miami Beach, Fla., where he planned to move and where he voted in 2018 before ultimately deciding to stay in New Jersey. He moved into the district in the fall, while his children continue to go to school in Princeton.

Fitzherbert, who grew up in North Jersey, has owned a home in the district since he was 23 but has moved around the country in recent years “as a result of the demands of the job,” and only began voting in the 2nd District in June 2018.

Patterson, who grew up in a different part of South Jersey, ran unsuccessfully for Congress in New Jersey’s neighboring 1st District in 2016 after living in Virginia for about 20 years.

Prior to Van Drew, Richter had been the main target of Fitzherbert and Patterson. They both pointed out that his company, Hill International, had hired former Vice President Joe Biden’s brother as an executive of a subsidiary around the same time it secured a housing contract in Iraq, which ultimately fell through.

Richter said it was his father’s decision to hire Biden‘s brother, and that he had warned against it. “The whole time we were in this business, I was pushing my dad to end it. And finally after several years of losses, he finally ended it and shut the whole thing down,” he said.

Fitzherbert’s campaign pointed out that Richter’s voting record was spotty, and that he had not voted in nearly half the primary and general elections in recent years.

Fitzherbert and Patterson [basically vanity candidates, especially Fitzherbert, who is also considered to be severely mentally ill even for a Republican] have potential weaknesses as well.

Fitzherbert has struggled to raise money, while Patterson has a history of controversial public statements, including favorably summarizing a study in a conservative journal in which he and a co-author wrote that using condoms “robs a woman of all these remarkable chemicals” found in semen.

That statement, along with Patterson’s writings that criticized women choosing careers over marriage and raising children, led to his resignation in 2012 as an adviser to then-Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett after the Philadelphia Inquirer raised questions about them.

“I have written hundreds of articles over my career, and some of those articles dared to question or debunk liberal groupthink on many issues,” Patterson said. “In other cases, I was summarizing scientific findings of empirical studies that someone else conducted.”

With the support of Trump and the NRCC, Van Drew is the new frontrunner. Pressure will build on local leaders to back him as well, giving him the “party line,” which in most of the district bestows favorable ballot placement.

The fact that all three remain committed to the race poses another danger. Even if Republican primary voters are suspicious of Van Drew’s motives for fleeing the Democratic Party, they might split their votes among the three challengers.

…Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray suggested the primary may get less crowded if local Republican leaders fall in line behind Van Drew-- something that’s already beginning with some local GOP chairs.

“Right now, it looks like it’s going to be crowded, but it could end up falling by the wayside if you have some key leaders ... coming out in support of a particular candidate,” Murray said. “If it happens to be Van Drew, you’re going to see the entire party get in line by the April filing deadline.”

The race won’t be over with the primary. Despite its Trump leaning, the 2nd District remains highly competitive, and Democrats plan to compete there. Three candidates-- political science professor Brigid Harrison, Atlantic County Freeholder Ashley Bennett and environmentalist John Francis-- are seeking the Democratic nomination.

“Certainly this leans Republican, and whoever the nominee is will be considered the favorite,’ but by how much of a favorite really depends on the presidential election,” Murray said.

The DCCC/EMILY’s List candidate, Brigid Harrison, also just happens to be the Norcross South Jersey machine candidate-- the same bunch of crooks who brought us Jefferson Van Drew… so of course the DCCC and EMILY’s List looked to them to pick the next candidate.

How Does The NRCC Target And Attack?-- Especially Now That The DCCC Has Practically Ceased To Exist

HR-1 was supposed to be Pelosi's big reform legislation to start off her new speakership. No one imagined #MoscowMitch would ever allow a vote in the Senate, so HR-1 will never be enacted until the Democrats take back the Senate-- and the White House. It takes some necessary steps towards reform, but not nearly enough. Lobbyists and Republicans have opposed it with all their might-- and now the NRCC is trying to twist the meaning of the bill is they can use the it to attack Democrats who voted for it. And they can certainly take their pick since every single Democrat voted yes and every single Republican voted no. It passed 234-193, one Democrat and 4 Republicans not voting.

The last desperate attempt of McCarthy and the Republicans to stop the bill in the House was a motion to recommit with instructions to have hearings with the intention "recognizing that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues and diminishes the voting power of American citizens." It wasn't germane and normal Democrats don't fall for these Republican maneuvers to gum up the works. In 1974 Joe Biden told a reporter from The Washingtonian that "A lot of us sit around thinking up ways to vote conservative just so we don’t come out with a liberal rating. When it comes to civil rights and civil liberties, I’m a liberal but that’s it. I’m really quite conservative on most other issues." That was 45 years ago. These Democrats are still operating the same way today! They voted with the Republicans to sabotage HR-1:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)

In the end McCarthy's childish scheme failed 197-228.

The non-partisan League of Women voters urged support for HR-1 with this note to its members in nearly 1,000 local chapters across the country:

The League of Women Voters urges you to vote YES for final passage of HR-1, the For the People Act. The League will be paying close attention to debate on this bill and the final vote on the House floor. We implore you to reject any amendments to this legislation that would weaken our democracy.

Throughout our nearly 100-year history, the League of Women Voters has worked to "level the playing field" of our election system by registering new citizens to vote, fighting unfair district maps in court, and advocating in Congress for fair election processes. Key provision in HR1 that should be maintained include:

1.      Break down barriers that prevent Americans from registering to vote. The Act requires states to allow same-day registration, establishes an opt-out system of automatic registration, and includes the establishment of an online voter registration for all eligible voters.
2.      Restore the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and strengthen our elections by cutting back the obstructive laws that have kept eligible voters from exercising their right at the ballot box.
3.      Establish independent, citizen redistricting commissions at the state level to draw congressional districts allowing voters to pick their politicians not the other way around.
4.      Empower small donors by creating a public financing system to match small contributions to presidential and congressional candidates. It will also close disclosure loopholes that allow outside groups to flood elections with millions of dollars of secret money.

HR-1 is an historic opportunity to put power back into the hands of the people. The League has worked tirelessly over the last few months to support and promote this legislation to all members of Congress.

Vote YES on final passage of HR-1.

Vote NO on weakening amendments and the motion to recommit.

The League of Women Voters didn't release this Ministry video though.



Yesterday the NRCC began a digital ad campaign against a dozen vulnerable Democrats, laughably calling them Socialists!!!! for voting for the mild reform package that would help drain the ever-increasing Trump-Republican Swamp in DC. It's a weak, melodramatic ad that feeds the low-info Republican base but that normal people will laugh at. So who gets called a "Socialist!!!!" in the GOP ad campaign? AOC? No. Rashida? No. Ilhan? No. In fact no left-of-center Democrats at all. The NRCC is targeting a dozen right-leaning DINOs-- a gaggle of Blue Dogs and New Dems, who tend to vote with Republicans out of fear. Like a mad dog, when the NRCC smells fear, they attack. The ad up top targets South Carolina Blue Dog, Joe Cunningham, who literally votes less progressively than some Republicans! All of the targets are right-of-center, fear-based Dems-- mostly Blue Dogs and New Dems-- and all have voting records that are rated "F" by ProgressivePunch. Cunningham's "F," though is even lower (less progressive) than the voting records of NRCC protection priorities Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and John Katko (R-NY), as well as Tom Massie (R-KY). Cunningham's crucial vote score is 20.93%. Former Republican, Justin Amash (I-MI) has score for this session that's more than twice as progressive: 55.81. These are the other 11 NRCC targets for this ad campaign-- in order of most Republican to less Republican:

• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Jared Golden (ME)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)
• Andy Kim (NJ)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)
• TJ Cox (CA)
• Susan Wild (New Dem-PA)

And with the Cheri Bustos have completely wrecked the DCCC already, there is no one to respond to the ridiculous NRCC attacks.

If the NRCC wants a stronger reform package, they should get behind this one that has been ignored by Pelosi and the Democratic establishment

Not Just Señor Trumpanzee-- The WHOLE DAMN PARTY... "There Is No Bottom To The Barrel Of Vitriol"

Yesterday, House Democrats-- without buy-in from any of the Democrats' conservative establishment leadership-- voted against Al Green's resolution to begin a formal investigation into impeaching Trump by sending his resolution to the Judiciary Committee to die. The Republicans and the Pelosi-faithful voted 332-95 against impeachment. Imagine if the Reichstag had had the opportunity to impeach Hitler and passed. Anti-impeachment votes that might surprise you:

• Justin Amash (I-MI)
• Judy Chu (D-CA)
• Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
• Deb Haaland (D-NM)
• Ro Khanna (D-CA)
• John Lewis (D-GA)
• Katie Porter (D-CA)
• Adam Schiff (D-CA)
• Mark Takano (D-CA)

The last two times Green forced a vote on impeachment-- before the current freshmen, who are overwhelmingly conservative and extremely cowardly-- were in office, he got around 60 votes. The 95 Democrats who opposed the McCarthy and Pelosi scheme to kill the resolution yesterday were:

You'll have to click on the image to read the heroes' names

Trump told the Daily Mail that he's not unhappy with the result of this week's brouhaha that left him branded a racist. Perhaps he should stop behaving like a racist if he doesn't like being branded a racist.

Meanwhile, Katie Edmondson, reporting for the NY Times yesterday before the vote, wrote that "The NRCC, with the blessing of House Republican leaders, has adopted a no-holds-barred strategy to win back the House majority next year, borrowing heavily from President Trump’s playbook in deploying such taunts and name-calling. After losing 40 seats and the House majority in November, Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the committee’s new chairman, and Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, decided that their messaging needed to be ruthless."

Ruthless? Well, they portray Adam Schiff-- where Trump got 22.3% of the vote in 2016 and where Schiff beat GOP opponent Johnny Nalbandian, 196,662 (78.4%) to 54,272 (21.6%) last year-- wearing clown makeup. This cycle, deranged far right crazy person, Eric Early, the endorsed GOP candidate against Schiff, is unlikely to even get to the general election, since the jungle primary is likely to see progressive Democrat Maebe A. Girl come in second, setting up a D vs D race in November. "Democratic congressional candidates-- including an Air Force combat veteran-- are labeled 'socialist losers' or anti-Semites. Others have been singled out as Lyin’ Lucy McBath, Fake Nurse Lauren Underwood, Little Max Rose and China Dan McCready." This is hardly a new trick by the GOP. When they tried the socialism scare tactic in 1932 and '36, FDR won both times, 57.4% to 39.7% in 1932 and then-- as the GOP continued screeching "Socialism!"-- 60.8% to 36.5% in 1936, the GOP taking just 8 electoral votes to FDR's 523. But that wasn't all the Republicans' brilliant strategy accomplished. Going into the 1930 election, there were 270 Republicans in the House and just 164 Democrats. This is how the GOP "Socialism!!" strategy worked out for them:

• 1930- The Republicans lost 52 seats and lost control of the chamber
• 1932- The Republicans lost 101 more seats bringing their total to 117
• 1934- The Republicans lost another 14 seats-- and then there were just 103 of them left whining about "Socialism!!"
• 1936- Another 15 GOP seats down the tube, leaving just 88 of them annoying the 334 Democrats, 8 Progressives and 5 Farmer-Labor Party members.

I won't go through the same exercise for the Senate. Suffice it to say that in 1928 there were 56 Republicans and 39 Democrats but after 8 years of the Republicans screaming "Socialism!!" the 1936 elections left the GOP with only 17 senators to the Democrats' 74 (+ one Progressive and 2 from the Farmer-Worker Party).

It's not going to go as well now as it did then because Democrats used to know how to fight that toxicity and Pelosi and Schumer are both utterly clueless, cowardly, status quo, Republican-lite, Establishment suck-ups. with more in common with the Republicans of that era than with their own predecessors from the FDR party. Still, the Republican strategy is likely to fail. Back to Catie Edmondson:

The offensive hinges largely on the relatively facile notion that by tagging all House Democrats as socialists, anti-Semites or far-left extremists, Republicans will be able to alienate swing-state voters. On Tuesday night, after the House voted to condemn as racist President Trump’s attacks on four congresswoman, the campaign arm’s communications team deluged reporters’ inboxes with message after message calling vulnerable Democratic lawmakers “deranged.”

Their tactics have discomforted some Republicans and highlighted the struggle in the party over how much to lean into the tenor of politics forged by their leader.

“To devolve into childish name-calling usually doesn’t win the argument. I think we can do better,” said Tom Rooney, a former five-term Republican representative from Florida. “Maybe this is what the donors to the NRCC want to hear nowadays. Maybe name-calling raises money, and that’s what we’ve become.”

...Committee officials show no sign of tempering their attacks.

“We make no apologies for aggressively calling out the anti-Semitic racists in the socialist Democratic Party totally consumed by their hatred of President Trump and America,” Chris Pack, the communications director of the campaign arm, said in a statement.

Mr. McCarthy, too, stood firm behind the strategy. He praised Mr. Emmer’s “strong tactical sense and impressive work ethic” in a statement.

“As a conference, we are united behind his vision to campaign on offense-- and expand the map by outworking, out-recruiting and exposing the corrupt, inept new Democrat Socialist Party,” Mr. McCarthy said.

Republican campaign operatives backing the strategy argued that aggressive tactics were necessary to rouse the interests of sleepy and shrunken local press corps. Adopting the mantra that “all news is good news,” the committee appears to believe that even if reporters choose instead to write about its bare-knuckled tactics, they are at least reiterating the nicknames and points that House Republicans hope will reach voters.

“If that’s what it takes to get a story,” said Mike Shields, who joined the National Republican Congressional Committee as director of its independent expenditure program in 2009 and helped Republicans win a 63-seat gain. “There needs to be a shift in mind-set to be in the majority. It’s better than getting no coverage at all.”

But the unrestrained use of nicknames also has provoked public outcry. After the committee issued a statement in early June mocking the stature of Mr. Rose, a moderate Democrat from New York, who stands at 5 feet 6 inches, even some Republicans came to his defense.

“Instead of working on bipartisan issues, Little Max Rose is content passing socialist bills” for “giggles,” Michael McAdams, a spokesman for the committee, wrote in an official release that used an epithet before giggles. “Playtime is over, Max.”

Members already displeased with what they felt were needlessly aggressive personal attacks felt the committee had crossed a line by taunting a veteran: Mr. Rose served in the Army for almost five years and was wounded in Afghanistan, earning a Purple Heart. Representative Mike Gallagher, Republican of Wisconsin, called it a “stupid tactic and a counterproductive tag.”

“I hope the lesson the NRCC draws from that is to not do it again,” Mr. Gallagher said.

Representative Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois and another veteran, told Politico: “The president’s got his own unique style. I don’t think we need to mimic it.” When Mr. Rooney saw the statement on Twitter, reposted by a Fox News reporter, he publicly expressed his disappointment with Mr. Emmer, calling out the committee chairman and commenting, “This isn’t you.” Mr. Pack, the chief spokesman for the committee, chimed in, “No, that’s Max Rose.”

Mr. Rooney shot back: “That’s not what I’m referring to. Maybe there’s a better conservative argument to counter his support of this legislation than calling him ‘little.’ At least that would be my advice to my 13-year-old.”

The exchange is only one of the Twitter scrapes that has spilled into public view. While committee messaging is, by nature, meant to attract the attention of the news media-- especially among local outlets in battleground districts-- party insiders have worried they have not attracted the right kind of attention.

When Jill Burcum, an editorial writer for the Minneapolis Star Tribune and a Pulitzer Prize finalist, took issue with the committee’s depiction of Mr. Schiff as a clown, Mr. Pack responded on Twitter. Using the same motley photo, he reiterated that Mr. Schiff was a “socialist clown” and added, "Don’t let your apparent bias blind you from that fact.”

When the committee called a little-known Air Force combat veteran who is running for Ohio’s First Congressional District a “socialist loser,” it struck a nerve: A columnist for the Cincinnati Enquirer panned the attack on the veteran, Nikki Foster, who flew missions over Iraq and Afghanistan, as “G.O.P. desperation.”

“In doing so, the congressional Republicans’ fund-raising arm brought attention to a candidate no one knew about. Why even go there?” the columnist, Jason Williams, wrote.

It's hilarious that prime GOP targets Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC) and Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ) vote more conservatively than Republican incumbents Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Thomas Massie (R-KY) and John Katko (R-NY). Are those Republicans "deranged socialists" too? Generally many of the other NRCC top targets-- like Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Cindy Axne (IA), Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Elaine Luria (VA), Jared Golden (ME), Kendra (OK) and Ben Adams (UT)-- have very similar voting records to vulnerable Republicans, beyond the 3 already mentioned, Elise Stefanik (NY), Chris Smith (NJ), Morgan Griffith (VA) and, sometimes, Andy Biggs (AZ), Tom McClintock (CA), Fred Upton (MI)-- one of the 4 who voted to condemn Trump's racist tweets on Tuesday-- Ted Yoho (FL), Jim Sensenbrenner (WI), Chip Roy (TX) and Brian Mast (FL). I guess they're counting on their low-info, Fox-brainwashed base to not connect the dots.

I wonder if the Republicans think it's going to help their cause that they blocked the Democrats' attempt to pass an extension of the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. Rand Paul and some other Republican extremists oppose paying self-responders promised compensation because the debt is too big. Maybe that's because they keep passing tax cuts for the wealthy.

This morning, McConnell stoked the fires of fascism even further. He told Fox Business News "I think the president is on to something and made it seem like Trump's vicious racist attack against AOC, Ilhan, Ayanna and Rashida was about stopping "socialism"-- which is how the GOP defines the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. As Trump changed his attack from "they should go back" to "send them back," McConnell response was "We're in a big debate now and next year about what we want America to be like. Do we really think socialism applies here at a time of great prosperity, 50-year-low unemployment? That's what the election I think is going to be about."

This morning, reporting for the AP, Steve Peoples and Zeke Miller reported that "Trump has placed racial animus at the center of his reelection campaign, and even some of his critics believe it could deliver him a second term. Every successful modern presidential campaign has been built on the notion of addition, winning over voters beyond core supporters. But Trump has chosen division on the belief that the polarized country he leads will simply choose sides over issues like race."

He intensified his attacks on Wednesday, blasting four young congresswomen of color during a rally in Greenville, North Carolina. The crowd responded by chanting, “Send her back!” echoing Trump’s weekend tweet in which he said the lawmakers, all American citizens, should “go back” to the countries from which they came.

“I do think I am winning the political fight,” Trump declared at the White House. “I think I am winning it by a lot.”

Not since George Wallace’s campaign in 1968 has a presidential candidate-- and certainly not an incumbent president-- put racial polarization at the center of his call to voters. Though Trump’s comments generated outrage and even a resolution of condemnation in the House, the president and his campaign believe the strategy carries far more benefits than risks.

“Regardless of whether his tweets are racist or not — I’m not saying they are or not — he is getting the media to make these extremely liberal, socialist, foolish congresswomen the face of the Democratic Party,” said Terry Sullivan, a frequent Trump critic who managed Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 Republican presidential campaign. “What he’s doing here is sad, but it’s smart politics.”

Still, there are clear perils to his approach.

Educated suburban voters, especially college-educated women, and minorities in key states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin were already threatening to revolt against the Republican president. Trump believes his inflammatory rhetoric will strengthen his support among the white working class and attract a new group of disaffected voters who fear cultural changes across America.

That approach is likely to face significant headwinds in those three key battleground states that he won by a combined 78,000 votes in 2016. Democrats will be far more aggressive in targeting female and minority voters. Most analysts agree that the potential universe of Democratic-leaning voters is larger, if they turn out. Trump is betting they will not.

The president has proved adroit at crafting a hero-villain narrative and is now focusing on Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan rather than a Democratic presidential candidate. His challenge will be whether he can drive that story line successfully for the next 16 months.

Trump told aides this week that the controversy has cemented the four progressive lawmakers as the faces of the Democratic Party, believing it has boosted his chances at reelection. Far from backing away from the comments, he and his party are now casting the minority Democratic congresswomen as the real racists.

“They are now the top, most visible members of the House Democrats, who are now wedded to this bitterness and hate,” Trump boasted on Twitter.

Trump aides and allies acknowledge that many voters may find the president’s comments objectionable, but for the voters they need in 2020, it may actually be an energizing force.

Those who already believe Trump is a racist and unfit for the presidency won’t vote for him in the first place. For voters in the middle, Trump’s team believes they can be sufficiently scared off the progressive agenda to cast votes for Trump-- or at worst, stay home in dispiritedness that neither party speaks to their issues. And for many others who didn’t vote at all in 2016, there is hope that his dramatic presidency, backed by fear of Democrats’ leftward lurch, will persuade them to show up at the ballot box.

Trump’s allies say they think many voters, both Republican and Democratic, are cool to the “woke culture” of 2019, just as they were to the focus on political correctness in 2016.

The Pew Research Center found in May that 8 in 10 Republicans feel too many people are easily offended over language today. About 4 in 10 Democrats said the same.

“The president wasn’t afraid to wade into these culture wars and he’s not afraid to do so again. He’ll stand up for our flag and against open borders. Patriotism will always win,” said Kelly Sadler, a spokeswoman for the pro-Trump super PAC America First Policies. The group plans to spend millions over the coming year on registering likely Trump voters across six swing states.

Veering sharply away from the inclusive tone GOP leaders called for in 2012, groups charged with electing Republicans up and down the ballot in 2020 have embraced Trump’s fiery style and message, which has long relied on demonizing immigrants and minorities.

Some voters may be responding.

The share of Americans who say the country’s openness to people from around the world is “essential to who we are as a nation” is shrinking, according to a new Pew poll.

The poll found that 62% of Americans see openness to others around the world as essential, a number that is down 6 percentage points over the last 10 months. Nearly 6 in 10 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said that if the United States is too open to people from around the world, “we risk losing our identity as a nation.” Pollsters in both parties said that white working-class voters in particular feel left behind by the Democratic Party’s focus on racial and gender equality. Trump’s hard-line position on race and immigration has alienated many minority voters.

Republican pollsters suggest the president’s real challenge will be in America’s suburbs, where college-educated women veered sharply away from Trump’s party in the 2018 midterms, giving Democrats the House majority.

“He went with racism and divisiveness before 2018 and lost 40 House seats-- including in the Midwest,” said Josh Schwerin, senior strategist for Priorities USA, the biggest super PAC in Democratic politics. “He has tried this. The country doesn’t want to be more divided.”

In June, Trump was down 4 points in North Carolina. It will be extremely interesting to watch for the July and then the August polling numbers, particularly for that state, without whose 15 electoral votes, Trump has absolutely no path to reelection.

Bustos Is Lucky She's Competing With Tom Emmer-- And Emmer Is Lucky His Competition Is Cheri Bustos

Emmer and Bustos-- 2 clueless DC losers attached at the hip

You may have noticed that around DWT, Cheri Bustos and the DCCC aren’t exactly our favorites. In fact, I fear that the opportunity Democrats have to pick up another 50 seats is going to be blown because Bustos is the most ideologically-oriented DCCC chair in history, worse even than Rahm Emanuel, her mentor, and Steve Israel. Bustos, an Illinois Blue Dog, is a rabidly anti-progressive Democrat who— like many right-of-center women— stumbled into the Democratic Party solely because of women’s issues. On non-women’s issues Bustos is basically a conservative and a Republican and the real problem is that she is seeking to replicate herself through DCCC recruitment and support strategies. However, even Bustos and the DCCC have a saving grace, namely Tom Emmer and the NRCC. Yep, the Republicans actually managed to find someone even lamer and apparently less competent than Cheri Bustos… and that is really saying something!

Late last week, Scott Wong reported for The Hill that House Republicans are waking up to what a loser they have running the NRCC. Emmer, who replaced Michele Bachmann when she was forced to retire in 2014. Emmer represents largely white suburbs and exurbs north and west of Minneapolis—from Lino Lakes, Blaine, East Bethel, Otsego and St. Michael’s all the way out past St. Cloud. Emmer made a living as a registered lobbyist and when he ran, unsuccessfully, for governor, Target and Best Buy contributed a total of a quarter million dollars, a blatant bribe. Just to give you an idea about how extreme Emmer is, he introduced legislation to abolish the minimum wage and supported a constitutional amendment in Minnesota to prohibit marriage equality for members of the LGBTQ community. His hateful bigoted proposals were rejected by Minnesota voters. And then the House Republicans decided to elevate him to the position of chairman of the NRCC.

A member of the House Financial Services Committee, Emmer has been aggressive in seeking out bribes from the banks and investment firms the committee oversees. Last cycle, his biggest contributions came from insurance, Wall Street, commercial banks, etc. He took $656,979 in bribes from that sector during the last cycle. That’s largely why the GOP thought he was a good bet for the NRCC job.

Wong explained the intense buyers’ remorse Members are feeling now. “In recent weeks,” he wrote, “a number of top Republicans have aired grievances with the House GOP campaign arm’s approach, with some going as far as questioning if Emmer and his operation are in over their heads.” Emmer's drooling attack dog, Chris Pack, is reported to have told people to ignore the whining since it's all coming from "a bunch of New Yorkers."

“His team is inept. They have no idea what they’re doing, and their strategy is not putting Republicans in a good position to take back the House,” one disgruntled GOP lawmaker told The Hill.

Members have become more vocal in their complaints after a recent squabble between Emmer and GOP Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney, with the Wyoming Republican telling him that Republicans raised questions about the NRCC’s strategy during a closed-door meeting last week.

Critics also pointed to an NRCC press release, which was later rescinded, that attacked Democrats for pushing lawmaker pay raises. It came at a time when GOP leaders were privately negotiating with Democratic leadership on a deal to boost congressional salaries.

The NRCC also hit Democrats for allowing lobbyists to attend their chiefs of staff retreat, even though Republicans have done the same thing in previous years.

The group’s aggressive messaging tactics— with the NRCC having taken on President Trump’s style of attacking political opponents by using nicknames like Little Max Rose and Fake Nurse Lauren Underwood— has certain factions of the party expressing a sense of unease with the new approach. Some fear it could hinder them from taking back the 20 seats they need to win back control of the House in 2020.

“I think in the larger conversation, what I see is, is just a lack of strategy, and just a series of trolling,” a former Republican National Committee official said. “And that can be fun to do, but not as fun as winning House races.”

Despite the criticism, the NRCC is standing by its strategy, arguing a bold approach is needed if they want to win. The group also said it has support from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

“Leader McCarthy has given us a mandate to be very aggressive this cycle with our approach, so that’s what we’re doing. While it may make some people uncomfortable, we’re not going to win back the majority in just two years by talking about puppy dogs and ice cream,” said NRCC spokesman Chris Pack.

Pack is more the guilty party for the radical approach and many members have been calling on him to be fired. One member told me, on condition of anonymity, that Pack is an embarrassment to the party who “thinks he’s Josef Goebbels” and is going to be responsible for the loss of Republican opportunities in mainstream districts. “This guy should go work for Freedom Works or one of those other radical outfits based in Alexandria... or Arlington. He doesn't seem to know what ‘positive’ means… If he thinks he’s going to win over new voters by screaming ’socialism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ at Democrats, he never studied political science or American history.” Pack told Wong that the NRCC is having “great success shining a spotlight on the dangerous socialist policies Democrats are proposing, their appetite for anti-Semitism, and enthusiastic support for late-term abortions. Our fundraising is exceeding expectations, we have had recruitment meetings with 178 women, 100 veterans and 83 minorities, and we will continue to put the work in to ensure our candidates are in a position to win.” He said the NRCC is setting the narratives for the 2020 cycle.

Concerns over the optics of NRCC Recruitment Chairwoman Susan Brooks (R-IN) announcing her retirement last week has been the latest in a string of complaints, with some questioning Emmer’s judgment in requesting she take on the role amid rumors she wouldn’t seek another term in the House.

“When Emmer asked Brooks if she would take charge of recruiting new candidates for the House, she told him that she hadn’t decided if she was going to run for reelection herself in 2020, yet she was still named recruitment chair,” one senior Republican said.

“Now she’s officially not seeking reelection, and so it makes this whole recruitment thing a bit awkward. I just think this little anecdote reveals the dysfunction within the NRCC right now. She should have never been named recruitment chair,” the lawmaker added.

Pack said the NRCC is confident Brooks’s decision won’t have a negative impact on recruitment efforts.

“She is staying on in her role as recruitment chair. If anything, it will intensify her recruitment efforts,” Pack said.

With the influx of criticisms, some members said they feel it was a misstep for McCarthy to have pushed for Emmer to take on the role.

“He’s well liked in the conference, but the general feeling is he’s not getting the job done,” one lawmaker said, referring to Emmer. “That is also affecting attitudes toward Kevin, as Tom was his hand-picked guy.”

McCarthy has defended the NRCC’s performance.

“Tom and his team are doing what it takes to win. They’re on offense and not letting Democrats get away with promising their voters action but coming to Washington and conforming to the new Democrat Socialist agenda.” he said in a statement.

Other lawmakers have argued it’s too soon in the cycle for members to cast judgment, noting former chairmen have faced criticism in the past and gone on to win or hold the majority.

“Well, you’ve got to have a philosophy of: Are you going to go on offense or are you going to be on defense? You know, there’s been a change. And the one thing I’ve found no matter what you do as NRCC chair, in the offices, somebody’s not going to be happy,” one member said.

“And what Emmer knows is he’s going to be judged on results— results will matter. He believes this is the right path and he is either going to either sink or swim based on it.”

Republicans, my source told me after reading this story in The Hill told me that many of his colleagues don’t care if Emmer sinks or not, just that “he and his team are taking the party down with them.”

The NRCC Wants Everyone To Know Who Their Weakest Incumbents For 2020 Are

The GOP defeat was so stunning and so overwhelming that HALF of these 10 random losing incumbents didn't even get into the NRCC Patriot Program

The NRCC Patriot Program-- which is charged with protecting vulnerable Republican incumbents-- was a total hot mess last year. Of the 30 members included in the program, 20 were defeated. These were the victims of the Patriot Program's inability to fight an anti-red/anti-Trump wave (the is bound to remain strong, or even strengthen, in 2020):

• Mike Bishop (MI)
• Rod Blum (IA)
• Mike Coffman (CO)
• Barbara Comstock (VA)
• John Culberson (TX)
• Carlos Curbelo (FL)
• Jeff Denham (CA)
• John Faso (NY)
• Steve Knight (CA)
• Jason Lewis (MN)
• Tom MacArthur (NJ)
• Erik Paulsen (MN)
• Bruce Poliquin (ME)
• Dana Rohrabacher (CA)
• Keith Rothfus (PA)
• Scott Taylor (VA)
• Claudia Tenney (NY)
• David Valadao (CA)
• David Young (IA)
• Kevin Yoder (KS)

On Friday the NRCC announced the first 8 members they added to the doomed program. It's a nice roadmap for Democrats to check who the opposition party thinks their weakest incumbents are. No surprises at all though:

• Fred Upton (MI)- won re-election with 50.2%. Trump carried the 6th district by 8.4 points.
• Don Bacon (NE)- won re-election with 51.0%. Trump carried the 2nd district by 2.2 points.
• Lee Zeldin (NY)- won re-election with 51.5%. Trump carried the 1st district by 12.3 points.
• John Katko (NY)- won re-election with 52.6%. Trump lost the 24th district by 3.6 points.
• Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)- won re-election with 51.3%. Trump lost the 1st district by 2 points.
• Michael McCaul (TX)- won re-election with 51.1%. Trump carried the 10th district by 9.1 points.
• Pete Olson (TX)- won re-election with 51.4%. Trump carried the 22nd district by 7.9.
• Will Hurd (TX)- won re-election by less than half a point (49.2%). Trump lost the 23rd district by 3.4.
• John Carter (TX)- won re-election with 50.6%. Trump carried the 31st district by 12.7.
• Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA)- won re-election with 52.7%. Trump carried the 3rd district by 7.4.

The DCCC and the NRCC are two of the lamest and most incompetent organizations in American politics-- and every year they battle it out, wasting tens of millions of dollars with their lame and ineffective strategies. One of the ugliest dances I see them doing every year is for the DCCC to warn their swing district candidates to trying to sound like Republicans as much as possible and to even vote like Republicans when they can. Two great examples are Blue Dogs Joe Cunningham (SC) and Charlie Crist (FL). Both have extraordinarily low "F" grades from ProgressivePunch. In fact, Cunningham has the single worst voting record of any Democrat this session-- a 30.77 lifetime crucial vote score. Two Republicans-- Justin Amash (MI) and Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)-- vote more progressively than Cunningham! Crist's lifetime crucial vote score is 56.77, indicating he votes slightly more frequently with Democrats than with Republicans. The DCCC tells them that will make them safer. But does it? Do they attract Republican voters? Not many, but that strategy sure turns off progressives and other Democratic base voters. And, instead of staving off criticism from the Republicans (and their right-wing media allies), it attracts it. Which Democrats do they put the most money and energy into attacking? The 3 most recent posts on the official NRCC blog were all posted on Thursday by Camille Gallo-- one on North Carolina Blue Dog candidate Dan McCready which also allowed them to sling some mud at Ilhan Omar:

Last night Dan McCready tried to thread the ol’ anti-Semitism needle, tweeting that he refused racist Ilhan Omar’s donations because he disagrees with any anti-Semitic comments.

But then he oddly stood up for the anti-Semite in his very next tweet.

Democrats were not happy, as one state Senator slammed McCready’s wish-washy decision to refuse Omar’s money.

Looks like McCready can’t have it both ways.

NRCC Comment: “Dan McCready’s faux condemnation of anti-Semite and racist Ilhan Omar is pathetic. If McCready is this feckless now, how can North Carolinians expect him to stand up to the socialist Democrats in Congress?” -NRCC Spokeswoman Camille Gallo

And the other two posts? Crist and Cunningham. No matter how many times they vote with the Republicans, the will always be attacked by the Republicans-- until they flip their registrations and become Republicans. Cunningham:

On the campaign trail, Joe Cunningham couldn’t stand lobbyists.

...He even said, lobbyists have had “a stranglehold over American politics for far too long.”

But now that he’s in the swamp, he’s fallen in love with them. The Charleston Post and Courier reports that Cunningham has hired THREE DC lobbyists to work for him.

That "stranglehold" is strong in Joe’s office.

NRCC Comment: “One of Joe Cunningham’s first decisions after being elected was to hire a bunch of DC lobbyists-- the very same thing he railed against on the campaign trail. Joe Cunningham is a joke, period.” -NRCC Spokeswoman Camille Gallo

The title of the post about "former" life-long Republican Charlie Crist is hilarious, especially since it beckons back to when he was the Republican governor of Florida: Charlie Crist-- The Socialist Democrats' Congressman. See? No matter how right-wing the voting record-- and Crist's is pretty right-wing-- the NRCC has a formula they'll stuff you into anyway: "Socialist! Socialist! Socialist! Venezuela!"

When Charlie Crist was Florida’s governor he ran as "The People’s Governor" and now proudly refers to himself as "The People’s Congressman." Through his long political career he’s claimed to put "people over politics," and that being loyal to a political party over the people is wrong.

But it looks like Charlie has ditched this conviction quicker than he’s switched political parties by joining the DCCC’s leadership team with the main goal of electing more socialist Democrats to Congress.

So much for putting people over politics, right?!

NRCC Comment: “Charlie Crist is going to need a new catchy campaign slogan. By joining the DCCC’s leadership team, Charlie has proven he’d rather be a party boss for the socialist Democrats than represent the people of Florida.” -NRCC Spokeswoman Camille Gallo

Democrats-- like Crist and Cunningham-- would be better off to stop dancing with the GOP and go for the jugular-- like like the Republicans do. The Democratic Establishment is whispering already about abandoning the state of Ohio because it's just "too red" for them to deal with. Bernie's having none of that bullshit. Last year Sherrod Brown, an unapologetic progressive, was reelected convincingly, beating multimillionaire Trumpist congressman, Jim Renacci 2,358,508 (53.4%) to 2,057,559 (46.6%), despite Renacci dumping over half a million dollars of his own it his failing campaign. Likewise, Obama beat McCain there is 2008 and then beat Romney in 2012. So why is it too red to contest for the establishment goof-bags? They all come from Hillary's failed campaign and she lost badly, after not seriously contesting the state anyway. Bernie's response? Watch this video his campaign released yesterday; this is how it's done-- right in their faces: