The Congressional Republicans Are Getting What's Coming To Them-- In Fact, Many Of Them Deserve Much Worse Than Just Losing Their Jobs

 

Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer noted what they termed a remarkable fact in their Politico column yesterday: Señor Trumpanzee and Pelosi haven't spoken since she ripped up his State of the Union speech last October. Suddenly, though, "their incentives are aligned: they both want a massive Covid deal in an unthinkably quick timeframe. This may happen, it may not, but both sides seem to be rowing toward the same goal at the moment. Washington has never negotiated on a package of this magnitude this late into a presidential election year."

Sherman and Palmer reminded their audience that Trump is an unpredictable, self-serving, dysfunctional sociopath-- they referred to it as "unreadable and unplayable"-- and "has no governing theory. But, in recent days, he has apparently decided that it is in his political interest to spend trillions of dollars. Pelosi has always wanted a big deal, but she’s hung on negotiating with Washington’s most eager man, Steven Mnuchin. She wanted a deal, and Mnuchin was her only option. (She has no patience for Mark Meadows, and the administration has no one else who knows what they’re doing.)

Sherman and Palmer claim a deal "isn’t all too close at this moment" and they may or may not be correct. It's as close as Trump wants it to be. All he has to do is give in to Pelosi. She sent a letter to the House Democratic conference and told her colleagues that "the $1.8 trillion offer from the administration was 'one step forward, two steps back.' The letter explains where Pelosi finds fault in the GOP offer. State and local funding is 'sadly inadequate,' she said, and the two are still $200 billion off in unemployment insurance. This could be a negotiating tactic, but even if so, these are real issues that need to be solved. It's in Pelosi's interest to hold out for every last thing, given how eager the Trump administration is for a deal. Pelosi wants this too. On Thursday, during a private phone call with her leadership team, Pelosi revealed another one of her incentives to getting a deal: she thought it would be better to do it now so she didn’t have to do it early in a Biden administration."

Sherman and Palmer got to a blockade to any deal: McConnell, who are already in the head-space of opposing any big spending deals (after running up the biggest peacetime deficit in history). Later in the day Sherman teamed up with another Politico writer, Burgess Everett to dig a little deeper into the scope of McConnell's and his cronies' opposition to a relief package the whole country-- meaning the voters, if not the donors-- are demanding. "Senate Republicans," they wrote, "lashed out at a potential framework for a new coronavirus deal between the Trump administration and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a conference call Saturday, warning that there was little support for a big spending bill right before the election. At least two GOP senators warned White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that spending as much as $2 trillion on a big bill could backfire at the ballot box. The administration has floated a large spending deal to Pelosi but is trying to get her to back down on some spending levels, but senators said even the White House wants to spend too much, according to multiple sources briefed on the call."

“There’s no appetite right now to spend the White House number or the House number,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), according to two sources briefed on the call.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) said that giving into Pelosi on anything seen as expansion of Obamacare in the next recovery bill will be seen as “an enormous betrayal by our supporters,” according to people familiar with the call.

The pushback from Senate Republicans shows just how difficult it will be to assemble a spending bill that can garner support from enough House Democrats and Senate Republicans to satisfy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

The stern response prompted Meadows to say that he would take their concerns back to President Donald Trump.

Incumbent GOP senators and House Democrats are eager for a deal before the Nov. 3 election, as is Trump, who wants negotiators to “go big” now after previously telling them to pull the plug. The administration officials said no deal was done yet, but even the framework discussed on Saturday produced plenty of skepticism among the Republican ranks.

This would be “the deal knell for our majority if Pelosi gets this win,” warned Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), according to one source. Both she and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) warned Republicans could lose support in the election if they accepted this.

Lee offered this analogy, according to two sources briefed on the call: "This bill makes sex look like church.

Lee added that the GOP’s efforts to highlight Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, who is on track to be confirmed before the election, could be hampered by a large spending deal with Pelosi. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) alleged that any such a large spending bill could deflate the economic recovery from the coronavirus devastating economic effects.

“I don’t get it,” Scott said of a potential massive spending bill negotiated by Pelosi and the administration. Scott and other conservatives are eager to attack what they see as wasteful spending proposals that would go to state and local governments.

Several Republicans also criticized Federal Reserve Board chairman Jay Powell, who has pushed for more stimulus.

It's all one big game for them. They're all in their own Beltway bubble world of crooked millionaires and don't feel the pain most Americans-- including most Republican voters-- are feeling. This morning. on CNN's State of the Union, Trump economics coke-freak Larry Kudlow said Señor T may out-bid the Democrats' $2.2 trillion proposal (that was cut down from a $3.2 trillion proposal by good-faith Pelosi compromise with Mnuchin by the way). Will Trump then endorse McConnell's opponent in his Senate race back in Kentucky? None of the senators quoted by Sherman and Everett are facing the voters 3 weeks from tomorrow. John Katko isn't a senator-- he's a congressman from a D+3 district in central New York-- and he is facing the voters on November 3. The district, which gave Hillary a 48.9% to 45.3% win over Trump, has been very tolerant of Katko. But that about to end. Independent voters in the district aren't happy that he's been a shill and enabler for Trump.

One of the local papers noted that a recent poll showed Trump losing badly to Biden-- 53-34% in the district and the progressive Democrat taking on Katko is riding on Biden's coattails-- on the way to a 45-42% win over Katko.

The pollster, Steve Greenberg said that "While 0% of Balter voters are supporting Trump, 13% of Katko supporters say they're voting for Biden. These are voters that Katko needs to hold onto and likely increase if he wants to win reelection. And it is a group that Balter likely needs to try and woo back to her side if she wants to hold or increase her narrow lead."

Biden has endorsed Balter and "as Democrats hope Biden can provide a boost to Balter's chances in the 24th district, Katko is being affected by Trump's low numbers in the district. The president is viewed unfavorably by 60% of voters, according to the Siena poll. That includes 30% of Republicans. An example of GOP dissatisfaction with Trump came in late August when former Republican Congressman Jim Walsh endorsed Biden for president."

Grant Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University, thinks the main factor in how the presidential race affects the 24th district campaign is the negative view of Trump and how that hurts Katko.

"Trump has become a millstone around Katko's neck," Reeher wrote in an email to The Citizen. "Clearly the main campaign strategy of the Balter campaign is to associate Katko with Trump as much as possible. In this regard, the president's performance in the first debate probably hurt Katko by proxy. That might have been the last straw for some independent and even Democrat voters who were previously willing to split their ticket in order to vote for Katko. Katko will need a large chunk of split tickets in order to win, and those might be harder to come by now."

In 2016, Katko didn't endorse Trump. He chose to write in former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for president instead of casting a vote for Trump, the GOP nominee.

Four years later, Katko opted to endorse Trump for reelection. The endorsement was announced in January-- before the COVID-19 pandemic that killed more than 210,000 Americans and sparked an economic crisis. Katko maintains his support for Trump, despite the likely effect it's having on his own campaign.

"I imagine that if Katko could have seen into the future back when he said Trump was the better choice, in comparison with Biden, he might have decided differently," Reeher wrote. "But he's in a tough spot. Trump is the de facto leader of his party, and Katko has been effective in getting money for his district by not alienating him too much."

  Democrats are hoping that the results will be similar to 2012 when the party last won this congressional seat. That year, Democratic candidate Dan Maffei won the election and Barack Obama won reelection as president with 57% of the vote. The polls, including the Siena College survey, suggest that Biden could come close to matching Obama's 2012 total.

Republicans, though, believe Katko can repeat what he did in 2016: Win reelection by outperforming the GOP presidential candidate in the district. Katko finished 16 points better than Trump in the 24th district four years ago.

The difference for Katko in 2020: He's facing a tough reelection fight. It's likely that he will outperform Trump in the district, but he may lose his bid for a fourth term in Congress. 

Please consider clicking on the 2020 Congress Needs More Progressive Women thermometer above and contributing what you can to Dana Balter's campaign.

Two Blue America Candidates Speak Out On Healthcare: Dana Balter And Tom Guild

The pandemic has forced progressive candidates to change their means of reaching voters. David Wasserman, writing yesterday for the Cook Report, noted "As the COVID-19 outbreak forces more states to delay spring primary and runoff dates, it's had another, more subtle effect: it's all but frozen the House recruitment process in place and curtailed fundraising, benefiting incumbents and candidates who had already built large war chests and disadvantaging recent entrants." It's especially helpful to conservatives-- on both sides of the aisle. Dana Balter is battling Trump boot-licker John Katko, who had already raised $1,545,336 by the December 31 FEC reporting deadline. Balter's haul-- before the pandemic struck-- was $519,225. Similarly, Oklahoma City Blue Dog Kendra Horn-- a conservative who votes with Trump more than nearly any Democrat in Congress-- had raised $2,277,970 both the end of the quarter and before her progressive primary challenger, Tom Guild jumped into the race.

This week, both Balter and Guild worked to get their core messages on healthcare out. Guild sent an e-mail to Oklahoma City voters. "In this time of national crisis," be began, "we must achieve a degree of isolation, interrupted by an occasional trip to the grocery store, to the pharmacy, and to fill up our vehicles with gas. We do our best to care for others at a distance by contributing to charities and via social media. During this stark and sober time let us reflect on how to improve America as we eventually resume some semblance of normalcy. This emergency is partially a result of a health care system, that really isn’t an integrated system, but a patchwork of institutions and industries focused on maximizing profits. As we transition to universal healthcare in America via Medicare for All, we will put in place an integrated system that is not profit-driven but focused on the health and wellbeing of every American. Deductibles and co-pays will be phased out and the per capita spending for healthcare will very likely be reduced." He continued:

“A government-run, single-payer system may be run with just enough resources for normal times... but unlike the patchwork, for-profit ‘system’ we have, a publicly run system can be ramped up much more quickly to meet crises such as this one.” (Paul Crist)

We face the current crisis woefully unprepared to meet the tremendous challenge before us. We can learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to not be placed in this situation again. As the only candidate for Congress in Oklahoma’s Fifth Congressional District embracing universal health care coverage by adopting MFA, it makes a difference which candidate we nominate and that we elect to represent our district.

Stay safe. Keep your distance. Keep the faith. Take care of yourself and others.

If you would like to financially support our effort to achieve systemic and meaningful change for the future you can do that [by clicking on the Medicare-For-All thermometer on the right].


Vote like your life and health and that of your fellow Americans is at stake.

Yours in the cause,

Tom Guild

Balter was more fortunate, as the Syracuse Post Standard decided to publish her commentary with its message to NY-24 voters and it was able to reach far more voters and potential contributors.

We’re experiencing a crisis unlike anything in our living memory; the toll on our health, lives, and economy will be immense. We all need to do our part to keep our communities safe and we need our leaders to step up and take action to limit the pandemic’s impact.

I have talked with countless people across central and western New York whose lives are being turned upside down. There was the friend who found an elderly couple in their car in the grocery store parking lot, crying because they needed food but terrified to go inside and be exposed to COVID-19. Then there was the owner of a 45-year-old family business who’s afraid it might not open again. Then there was the man recently diagnosed with stage 4 kidney cancer for whom the world is now unimaginably dangerous. These heartbreaking stories make clear that we must do everything we can to curb the effects of this crisis.

As individuals, we need to take social distancing seriously and closely follow expert guidelines from the CDC. Thankfully, as New Yorkers we have Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s steady leadership. His navigation of this near-impossible situation is extraordinary and will save lives and livelihoods. He exemplifies what we need from our leaders in this moment: calm, confidence and competence.

The governor’s example is made all the more remarkable by a complete absence of leadership from President Donald Trump. His failure to lead us through this crisis is staggering. At every stage, his response has made the situation far worse than it needs to be.

Trump ignored early warnings from his own intelligence agencies that the COVID-19 pandemic was coming. Despite knowing how bad this situation would get, for months he minimized the threat to the public and refused to take necessary action to prepare for the impending danger. The president has continued to downplay the seriousness of this crisis, last Tuesday suggesting that things will be back to normal in a matter of a couple of weeks while health experts have agreed that this will take months to address. Most disturbing is that he actively spreads misinformation about COVID-19, which is incredibly dangerous.

The idea that this is the leadership this country needs is not only absurd, it’s dangerous. And yet, this is the man Rep. John Katko endorses. This is the man John Katko insists has made us better off. This is the man John Katko tells us is the leader we need for another four years.

Trump’s calling himself a wartime president. Would a wartime president leave generals without stocked bases? While Trump dithers, hospital administrators and doctors, left without ventilators and personal protective equipment (PPE), are facing unimaginable ethical decisions about whom they should save and whom they should let die. Absurd. Would a wartime president send soldiers into battle without helmets and body armor? While Trump dithers, we are leaving our front-line healthcare workers unprotected without PPE. So we are sewing face masks at home to donate to hospitals and clinics and nurses are wearing garbage bags because “it’s better than nothing.” Dangerous.

Government must prioritize the health and safety of our people. The president should immediately use the Defense Production Act to direct companies to manufacture ventilators and PPE and distribute that equipment. This is necessary to address two dire circumstances: 1. there isn’t an adequate supply of this vital equipment, and 2. currently states are competing with each other for access to the scarce supplies available.

Thankfully, Congress has turned its attention to addressing the economic fallout of this public health crisis. The response must include substantial cash assistance to individuals and families. We have to ensure speedy arrival of funds and recognize that a one-time payment is unlikely to be enough. We should institute a freeze on all mortgage payments, rent, debt collection, and student loan payments without interest or penalty. We must give massive support to small businesses to help them survive the weeks and months ahead. We do not need to bail out giant corporations; they have huge profits and bankruptcy protections that will see them through. Any assistance that is given to corporations must be contingent on: no bonuses or dividends for the duration of the loan; no stock buybacks; no lay-offs; honoring of collective bargaining agreements, a $15 minimum wage.

We’re dealing with the biggest public health crisis we’ve seen in a century and the resulting economic crisis. Both have been made worse by a stunning failure of leadership by the president, whom John Katko endorses. We have to rise above that failure in leadership. And we can. We have a long way to go but if we come together, we will get through this crisis. We all know that we are better than Donald Trump and now is the time to prove it.

Wendell Potter, was formerly vice-president for corporate communications at Cigna, a crooked insurance outfit. Today he's president of Business for Medicare for All. Yesterday The Guardian published a chilling piece he wrote, Millions of Americans are about to lose their health insurance in a pandemic. "The tragic effects of our battle with the novel coronavirus are seemingly endless. But arguably the most mind-blowing is this: the very pandemic that threatens to infect and kill millions is simultaneously causing many to also lose their health coverage at their gravest time of need." And he explained how and why:

Here’s how: the virus has caused a public health crisis so severe that people have been forced to stay home, causing businesses to shutter and lay off workers. And with roughly half of Americans getting their health insurance from their employer, these layoffs mean not only losing their income but also their medical coverage. In other words, just as our need for medical care skyrockets in the face of a global pandemic, fewer will have health insurance or be able to afford it. According to one recent report, the cost of treatment for Covid-19 can run around $35,000. As the patient in the report exclaimed: “I was pretty sticker-shocked. I personally don’t know anybody who has that kind of money.”

So, how did we get to such a dire place? Many will sadly lose their jobs over the coming weeks-- with one estimate projecting as many as 30%. And as they do, Americans are about to learn something horrifying: how irrational and irresponsible it is for so many to be dependent on employers for health insurance. Take it from me. I’m a former health insurance executive who once profited from this system. It’s time for it to stop.

America needs to finally get out of the business of linking health coverage to job status. Even in better times, this arrangement was a bad idea from a health perspective. Most Americans whose families depend on their employers for coverage are just a layoff away from being uninsured. And now, when many businesses are shutting down and considering layoffs, it’s a public health disaster. Across the country we’re seeing reports of layoffs in almost all industries. As we approach a global recession, some analysts suggest that a million or more US workers will lose their jobs in April alone. Consider what this means for health care in this country.

We’ve seen this before. During the last big recession, researchers at Cornell University found that 9.3 million Americans lost their health insurance between 2007 and 2009. Why? As people lost work, their employer-provided insurance went away. During this time, roughly six in 10 Americans who lost their jobs became uninsured. And this problem compounds itself. If the reason you lost your health insurance is that you no longer have steady employment, how are you now going to be able to afford monthly premiums for some other private health care plan? This problem becomes particularly acute when you consider that premiums for health plans sold on exchanges are projected to soar, as well, due to “unexpected Covid-19 costs.”

It’s worth noting that even in good times, the employer-based model fails to cover enough of us, with the number of Americans covered through an employer steadily dropping in general. Since 1999, the percentage of those with job-based coverage has declined by nine points. And it most certainly will drop like a rock in the coming weeks and months.

It’s now clear that this system cannot handle our current reality. With so many Americans sadly on the verge of unemployment, the number that will lose health coverage will be crushing. As we rebuild our country’s economic base and reimagine the roles various industries play in our new future, we must also begin a difficult conversation about health care. If we’re dependent on jobs in order to have it, a lot of us will be left out in the cold. And at a time in our nation’s history where more will need quality care than ever before, the human cost will simply be too much to bear.

Reminder: the men and women you'll find by clicking on the ActBlue thermometer above will take you to a list of candidates-- including but not limited to Tom Guild and Dana Balter-- campaigning on Medicare-for-All.

Dana Balter and Tom Guild

Trump's Toxicity Has Wrecked The Chances For Republicans Like Rodney Davis, John Katko And Fred Upton To Be Reelected

Remember when I told you that Change Research is this cycle's polling outfit to pay attention to? I was in heaven seeing their latest-- surveys in 3 battleground congressional districts, Michigan's 6th (Fred Upton), New York's 24th (John Katko) and Illinois' 13th (Rodney Davis). All the incumbents are Republicans and all the districts are swingy and flippable. Two, MI-06 and NY-24, have solid progressive challengers, respectively Jon Hoadley and Dana Balter) and the other has a fairly worthless Cheri Bustos/DCCC careerist who stands for nothing at all and is so ashamed of the Democratic Party that she has no issues on her campaign site, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan.

Although IL-13 is now rated R+3, Obama won it convincingly in 2008 and was virtually tied in 2012. Hillary, exactly the wrong kind of candidate for a district like this, lost by 5 points to Trump in 2016. In the primaries, Bernie won resoundingly, showing what Democrats want there-- change not status quo, so of course the Democratic establishment gave them putrid example of the status quo-- Londrigan-- as their candidate. She lost. And she's back again. There are 14 counties in the district, though most of the votes come out of just 5-- Champaign, Madison, Macon, Sangamon and McLean. This table shows how Bernie, Hillary and Trump did on primary day:

• Champaign- Bernie- 20,581 (65.9%), Hillary- 10,542 (33.8%), Trump- 7,645
• Madison- Bernie- 18,723 (54.5%%), Hillary- 15,332 (44.6%), Trump- 15,588
• Macon- Bernie- 4,990 (45.2%), Hillary- 5,945 (53.8%), Trump- 6,655
• Sangamon- Bernie- 10,365 (52.6%), Hillary- 9,255 (46.9%), Trump- 11,930
• McLean- Bernie- 12,936 (62.4%%), Hillary- 7,695 (37.1%), Trump- 8,653
• Macoupin- Bernie- 3,552 (55.0%), Hillary- 2,770 (42.9%), Trump- 3,527
• Christian- Bernie- 1,526 (51.2%), Hillary- 1,395 (46.8%), Trump- 2,392
• Montgomery- Bernie- 1,266 (49.3%), Hillary- 1,241 (48.3%), Trump- 2,269
• Jersey- Bernie- 1,069 (54.5%), Hillary- 853 (43.5%), Trump- 1,902
• Piatt- Bernie- 1,016 (55.5%), Hillary- 787 (43.0%), Trump- 1,496
• De Witt- Bernie- 659 (53.3%), Hillary- 561 (45.4%), Trump- 1,577
• Greene- Bernie- 530 (49.4%), Hillary- 503 (46.9%), Trump- 1,014
• Calhoun- Bernie- 503 (50.7%), Hillary- 446 (45.0%), Trump- 329
• Bond- Bernie- 858 (53.4%), Hillary- 718 (44.7%), Trump- 1,102

Change Research explained that the goals of the 3 surveys "were to understand how closely voters were tracking Trump’s Ukraine scandal, the House Intelligence Committee hearings, what evidence and arguments for or against impeachment are most resonant, whether voters recognize the seriousness Trump’s actions, and how voters expect their member of Congress to hold Trump accountable." It's the final goal that most interests us here but I encourage you to read the whole analysis. These are the PVIs of the three districts:

• IL-13: R+3
• NY-24: D+3
• MI-06: R+4

In their intro, Change Research explains that Katko, Upton and Davis "enter 2020 with exceptionally low favorability ratings and with majorities disapproving of their handling of the impeachment inquiry and their record when it comes to holding President Trump accountable. A majority of voters in these key Republican districts think what Trump did was wrong and, once they hear the facts, are less likely to support Members of Congress who oppose the impeachment inquiry. Specifically, majorities express concern about facts established during the impeachment inquiry and believe that the primary grounds for impeachment have been established-- including believing Trump abused the power of his office, withheld military funds to pressure a foreign country to investigate a political rival, and put his personal political interests before the good of the country. The survey also found that voters will not reward Republicans for their opposition to impeachment: just 38% say they are more likely to support a member of Congress who opposes impeachment at the end of the survey, while a 54% majority says they are less likely to support an impeachment opponent after hearing arguments on both sides. The message is clear: voters in these districts believe their representatives should put politics aside during impeachment and do their job."

I. Republican incumbents are unpopular and voters believe they are not doing enough to hold Trump accountable

The vulnerability of these Republican members of Congress is reflected in their favorability ratings, which start from a net negative position in each district. John Katko is 8 points net unfavorable and Rodney Davis is 10 points net unfavorable. Fred Upton, is a remarkable 40 points net unfavorable. In particular, majorities in these swing districts-- districts where it still pays to appear independent-- disapprove of the job their congressman is doing standing up to President Trump and holding President Trump accountable. Majorities also disapprove of their congressman’s handling of the impeachment inquiry.

But if these Republicans are hoping to take on enough of Trump’s water today to make it through their GOP primary, and rely on their approval ratings on the economy to survive another general election, they should take a look at their dismal approval ratings on voters’ top priority, health care costs. Just 37% approve of Rodney Davis’ handling on health care costs, just 32% approve of John Katko’s handing, and a dismal 26% approve of Fred Upton’s handling of health care costs.

II. Voters are closely tracking the impeachment inquiry

After the House Intelligence Committee’s hearings, seven-in-ten voters have heard or seen a lot about the impeachment inquiry, and they are very concerned by what they have learned.

...It is clear that voters, even in these more conservative-leaning districts, believe that the President’s conduct is wildly inappropriate and worthy of the investigation underway. Regardless of their feelings about impeachment, majorities in these districts believe that Trump has engaged in conduct that will ultimately provide the basis for impeachment articles - including abusing the power of his office (52%, 47% strongly), withholding military funds to pressure another country to investigate a political rival (52%), putting his personal political interests before the good of the country (51%, 47% strongly), and engaging in corruption (51%). Majorities also believe he has intimidated a witness (53%), undermined the rule of law (51%), and even committed crimes (51%).

III. GOP arguments are less effective than those of impeachment supporters at moving ‘impeachment persuadables’

About half of voters in these GOP-held districts already support impeachment without reservation, while just three-in-ten voters oppose impeachment and think Trump did nothing wrong. This leaves over one-in-five who are still impressionable on the impeachment question.

... As the impeachment proceedings progress, these Republican members of Congress have few convincing arguments in their arsenal. The argument that “Donald Trump’s actions are very troubling, but with an election coming next year, Congress should not overturn 63 million votes by impeaching the President now” was ‘not convincing at all’ to a stunning 55% majority of voters, including 36% of Republicans. A similar argument that says “Donald Trump may have engaged in wrongdoing, but it is not worthy of impeachment, which will divide our country and stop progress on critical issues like health care and trade deals” was ‘not convincing at all’ to 52% of voters, including 30% of Republicans.


Also unconvincing is an argument that “President Trump was right to ask his lawyer to investigate corruption in Ukraine. Ukraine has had it out for Trump since the 2016 election,” which was ‘not convincing at all’ to nearly half of voters. This conspiracy theory seems to have some traction, however, with the Republican base. While 83% of Democrats and 46% of independents give this a 0 on a 1-10 scale (where 0 means it is not convincing at all and 10 means it is very convincing), 47% of Republicans say it is a ‘very convincing’ argument against impeachment.


 ...The good news for impeachment supporters is that their arguments for impeachment are stronger by comparison. The strongest arguments say that the evidence demonstrates that Trump’s conduct has reached an established bar for impeachment-- which is what the Judiciary Committee was attempting to demonstrate to the public in last week’s hearings.

An argument that the evidence shows “Trump abused the power of this office for personal gain, an impeachable offense in the Constitution, and in so doing undermined our national security, to the benefit of the Russians, by withholding taxpayer funded military aid to Ukraine” was a ‘very convincing’ justification for impeachment for nearly 4-in-10 voters. As convincing was an argument that the evidence establishes Trump “solicited a bribe, an offense listed in the Constitution as one worthy of impeachment, by withholding taxpayer-funded military aid and a White House visit to pressure Ukraine to give something of value to his re-election.”

A majority of these voters acknowledge that Trump has abused the power of his office, withheld military aid to pressure an ally to investigate a political rival, put his personal political interests above the good of the country, and more. Majorities find the evidence established in the investigation concerning, and majorities disapprove of the way these Republican congressmen are handling the inquiry and their approach to Trump.

...After hearing from both sides on impeachment, a majority of voters in these GOP-leaning districts are now willing to punish these GOP members for their unwillingness to participate in the impeachment inquiry, with 54% saying they are less likely to support a member of Congress that opposes the impeachment inquiry. That includes 54% of voters in IL-13, 53% of voters in MI-6, and 56% of voters in NY-24.

IV. Conclusion

A majority of voters in these key districts think what Trump did was wrong and, once they hear the facts, are less likely to support Members of Congress who are opposed to the impeachment inquiry. The message is clear: these representatives should put politics aside during impeachment and do their job.

What I'm Hearing From Candidates-- Preexisting Conditions

Dana Balter, the progressive woman running against Trump enabler John Katko in NY-24 (Syracuse), called yesterday. Although the 538 forecaster only gives her a dismal 2 in 7 chance to win, and the severely flawed NY Times-Siena poll shows Katko leading her 54-39%, we're betting on her winning this D+3 district where Obama won comfortably both times he ran and where even a Democrat as weak and unsuitable for the district as Hillary eked out a 48.9% to 45.3% win over Trump. Bernie won Cayuga County and the Oswego and Wayne County portions of the district and Onondaga County went narrowly for Hillary.

Dana is an avid and well-spoken Medicare-For-All supporter and Katko and allied PACs have been twisting the very meaning of healthcare to attack her for it. The DCCC isn't spending to defend her-- they hate progressives-- but Pelosi's SuperPAC just jumped in with some decent attack ads against Katko, albeit not on the healthcare issue, which is what Balter really needs. By the way, you can contribute to the Get-Out-The-Vote efforts of Dana and the other candidates who fully back Medicare-For-All by clicking on the Blue America healthcare thermometer on the right.

We're hearing minor variations of this story everywhere in the country from Democratic candidates. Since their bullshit Tax Scam is impressing no one except their own partisans, the GOP has started campaigning on healthcare-- or, better put, healthcare lies. They claim they, not the Democrats have been protecting the very popular protection against insurance companies discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. It's a farce, but not all voters pay attention closely enough, especially when the lies are endlessly repeated on TV and radio. Watch that video CAP did up top. Those are Republican members of Congress you hear over and over hootin' and hollerin' and clapping as Republicans in Congress passed bill after bill after bill to repeal pre-existing conditions.

Tuesday, NBC News reported that the Beltway Democrats are trying to counterattack. They "are seizing on a report-- "Families & Seniors Foot the Bill for GOP Tax Cuts-- detailing a nearly dollar-for-dollar balance between two decades of tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest one percent and proposed GOP spending cuts" to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

It could provide new fuel to Democratic candidates just two weeks before the midterm elections and comes on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s comments last week about the need to overhaul entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit.

Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee issued the study, based on calculations by the non-profit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, late last week. It shows that the estimated $2 trillion cost of the Bush and Trump-era tax cuts through 2025 is the same amount which Republicans have proposed cutting from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Obamacare.

"It is a dollar-for-dollar transfer of benefits to those who need help the least paid for by those who need help the most," said Phil Schiliro, a Democrat who’s served in several government positions including as President Obama’s legislative director... [It] concludes that the average beneficiary from social safety net programs would stand to lose $1,500 a year under proposed cuts. And it comes as President Donald Trump is teasing another potential tax cut ahead of the midterm elections.

The House Budget Committee vote in June proposing $2 trillion in entitlement cuts got little attention, but the new report comes as Democrats are trying to short-circuit a surge in GOP enthusiasm around the midterms that could hinder their attempt to win back control of the House and, especially, the Senate.

...In House races, Democrats are seizing on the issue in affluent areas like the Virginia suburbs of Washington D.C. as well as working class Trump strongholds in the north (Maine’s 2nd congressional district); the south (Arkansas’s 2nd district) as well as the industrial Midwest.

For instance, in central Ohio’s 12th district that voted for Trump by 11 points, O’Connor is running an ad attacking incumbent Republican Troy Balderson for protecting "big corporations" by backing "their huge tax giveaway."

"Now the bill is due, and you’re going to pay for it. A two trillion dollar increase in the debt, left to future generations and deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits," the ad says.

At rallies on Saturday and Monday, both Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama pressed the message.

"You guys paid for this. But what’s happening now, not a joke. Mark my words, if we don’t win back the House and Senate, they’re going to drastically cut Social Security," said Biden.



...According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the majority of the TV ads this cycle focusing on Social Security and Medicare cuts make a connection to the tax bill.

In the past few months, the House Majority and Senate Majority PACs, the major outside groups supporting Democratic congressional candidates, have cut numerous ads on health care and the tax cuts.

Due to the demographic pressure of the retirement of the baby boom generation, the nation would have to make changes to federal entitlements regardless of the tax cuts, said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Yet two decades worth of unfunded tax cuts "hastens the timeframe and it increases the size of the (necessary) cuts," he said.

...An internal study commissioned by the Republican National Committee and completed in September found "special attention should be paid to the messaging regarding Social Security and Medicare," and it says "most voters believe that the GOP wants to cut back on these programs in order to provide tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy."



Earlier this month, Trump himself placed an editorial in USA TODAY arguing that Democrats’ plan for "Medicare for All" would "take away benefits" from seniors. The nonpartisan FactCheck.Org found it contains several "false and misleading statements." And the president has been claiming, falsely, in rallies in critical Senate races like Montana that it’s Democrats who want to "destroy" Medicare and Social Security.

A number of Republicans have also tried to preempt the attacks by pointing a finger at Democrats.

For instance, in California, an NRCC ad in southern New Mexico warns the Democratic candidate, Xochitl Torres Small, would support a government-run system "ending Medicare as we know it" and "raiding the trust fund."

Yet, according to polling, Democrats have a decisive advantage on health care. Among those voters who rank health care as a top issue, Democrats have an 18-point advantage, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

McConnell’s comments, say Democrats, just allowed them a final chance to break through with their messaging weeks before the election.

"I’m calling it the full McConnell," Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic consultant who’s been developing ads on the tax cuts and entitlement cuts and says McConnell’s comments are helping Democrats.

"It should be declared an in-kind contribution to Democrats on the Federal Election Commission" reports, he said.

It's ironic that the Republican cuts planned if they win will be most devastating to this half dozen states, hitting the indicated percentage of households. And remember, crooked conservative lawmakers pay more attention to lobbyists than to their own constituents:

West Virginia- 63.3%
New Mexico- 62.2%
Arkansas- 60.7%
Kentucky- 58.6%
Florida- 58.4%
Mississippi- 57.6%

Only one, New Mexico, isn't a red state, but even New Mexico has a Republican governor. If you missed this yesterday, let me reiterate: Mitch McConnell to Bloomberg News October 16: "I think it would be safe to say that the single biggest disappointment of my time in Congress has been our failure to address the entitlement issue [Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid], and it's a shame, because now the Democrats are promising Medicare-for-All... There's been a bipartisan reluctance to tackle entitlement changes because of the popularity of those programs. Hopefully at some point here we'll get serious about this. We haven't been yet." McConnell was making the point that cutting these popular programs can only be done in a bipartisan way so both parties share the ire. That's why I oppose Blue Dogs and New Dems so vehemently. They're the ones willing-- eager-- to share the ire.

What Happens AFTER The Wave? What Can Democrats Accomplish?

Never afraid to tell the voters what he plans to do

Over the weekend, Politico released a new poll of registered voters from Morning Consult. A couple of points:41% approve of Trump (22% strongly) and 54% disapprove (42% strongly). A full 60% of respondents said it would be inappropriate for Trump to pardon Manafort (which he plans to do) and only 11%-- hardcore Trumpists-- say it would be appropriate. Interestingly, 60% also said that Michael Cohen's guilty plea and Paul Manafort's guilty verdict make them more likely to vote for Democratic candidates in the midterm and only 10% say that would make them more likely to vote for Republican candidates. Asked if they think congressional Republicans are doing a good job in providing oversight for Trump, 7% said excellent, 17% said good, 20% said fair and 40% said poor. In terms of the DC swamp, 26% said it's gotten better since Trump took office and 50% said it's gotten worse. Favorable/Unfavorable ratings for political figures:

• Mitch McConnell- 18%/42%
• Paul Ryan- 29%/45%
• Nancy Pelosi- 26%/49%
• Chuck Schumer- 20%/37%
• Mike Pence- 39%/41%
• Trump- 41%/54%
• congressional Republicans- 33%/53%
• congressional Democrats- 38%/48%

44% of voters feel Trump's campaign worked with Russia to influence the 2016 election, 36% say the campaign didn't and 19% don't know. 49% say Trump tried to obstruct the investigation and 34% say he didn't. 42% said Congress should begin impeachment proceedings, the same number who say they shouldn't. Then there was this: "Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate for U.S. Congress who called for impeaching President Trump, or would it not make much difference in your support for the candidate either way?"

• Much more likely- 21%
• Somewhat more likely- 14%
• Somewhat less likely- 6%
• Much less likely- 26%
• Not much difference- 21%
• No opinion- 12%

If you've been getting blurred over, now's the time to start paying attention. Voters were also asked how much of a priority they put on investigating the Trump campaign's role in Putin-Gate:

• A top priority- 39%
• Important priority0 16%
• Not too important- 17%
• Should not be done 18%
• No opinion- 10%

OK, now Cook's mostly silly guesses about what will happen in November. Dave Wasserman still sees a wave, but it might be big or it might be small. Thanks, Dave; you rock. "The most critical phase of the battle for the House isn't October; it's right now," he wrote. "Republicans' only hope of defying a 'Blue Wave' and saving their 23-seat House majority is to personally disqualify Democratic nominees on a race-by-race basis with quality opposition research. But there's a narrow window of time to do so before the airwaves get clogged, and Republicans will need to be selective." They basically have one-size-fits-all, ads already clogging the airwaves, calling everyone a Pelosi clone, and a few especially vicious attacks on Democrats they fear most, like Randy Bryce in Wisconsin. Conservative billionaire donors continue to spend very heavily in Democratic primaries to try to knock out progressives like Alan Grayson (FL) and Matt Heinz (AZ) on Tuesday, by pushing Republican-lite conservatives like Darren Soto and Ann Kirkpatrick. The strategy has worked in some races-- notably in Chicago where the No Labels poisonous smear campaign destroyed Marie Newman and reelected Blue Dog worm Dan Lipinski-- and failed in others, where progressives like Sue Wild (PA) and Debra Haaland defeated GOP-lite candidates John Morganelli and Damon Martinez, backed by big bucks laundered by Republicans into No Labels.

Back to Cook's prognosticatications. "The playing field of competitive races." wrote Wasserman, "has expanded, and not in a good way for the GOP: of the 66 races in our 'Lean' and 'Toss Up' columns, Republicans are defending 62 and Democrats just four... Many Republicans wish they could simply run on a great economy, but complain President Trump's constant distractions won't let them. Instead, Republicans will have to convince voters that the Democratic alternatives are unacceptable."

The DCCC is making the same mistake they made-- so disastrously-- in 2010 by letting the Republicans define Democratic candidates while they sit on their asses doing nothing but figuring out how of a rake-off from campaign donations their pals can get. Ryan's SuperPAC "is already unloading blistering attack ads on Democratic nominees in 15 key districts," while the DCCC is still spending their energy and resources against progressives and ignoring Republicans.

Wasserman is betting that 5 incumbents in seats Hillary won will survive the wave: David Valadao (CA-21), Carlos Curbelo (FL-26), John Katko (NY-24), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01) and Will Hurd (TX-23). In one of the races the DCCC intervened in on behalf of an establishment candidate, they were beaten back by local Democrats and the winning candidate was Dana Balter. Wasserman's lack of belief in her comes straight from the DCCC. I'd bet she'll win her race. We'll know who's taking on Curbelo on Tuesday night but TX-23, CA-21 and PA-01 has DCCC-type uninspiring candidates who can only win if the wave if big enough-- just like the DCCC itself, a lesser-of-two-evils operation that always loses unless Republican overreach generates an anti-red wave, like the one headed towards shore now. Wasserman should get to know Balter so he stops makings foolish predictions about NY-24.

The next month of ads and polls will tell us a lot about the intensity of voters' opposition to President Trump in these seats. In 2010, very little of what Democrats threw at Republicans stuck. It's possible that in 2018, suburban professional women will be so desperate to send a message to Trump that they'll be willing to overlook a lot of Democratic nominees' flaws.

The 66 competitive races below don't include three open GOP seats that are already "in the bag" for Democrats (NJ-02, PA-05, PA-06) and one Democratic open seat that's already sure to flip to Republicans (PA-14). Effectively, Democrats start out with a net gain of two off the bat and would need to win only 25 of these 66 races (38 percent) to capture the majority.

Cook's opinion, that's all

There are still more races in Lean Republican than Lean Democratic, and if those races fell to the favorites and the 30 Toss Ups were to split evenly, Democrats would gain 22 seats, one short of a majority. But there's still time for many of the races in Lean and Likely Republican to develop into more competitive contests, and in wave election years, the Toss Ups typically break disproportionately towards one party.

Democrats remain clear but not overwhelming House favorites. On the low end, it's possible House control may not be decided until days after the election. It's also possible a "Blue Wave" could propel Democrats to historic gains, well past the 23 they need. Right now, Democrats appear poised to gain between 20 and 40 seats, with 25 to 35 the likeliest outcome.

Ratings Changes:

• NY-25: OPEN (Slaughter) | Likely D to Solid D
• NC-02: Holding | Likely R to Lean R
• OH-01: Chabot | Lean R to Toss Up

So why did I put you through all this, on a Sunday morning, no less? It was all leading to Paul Blumenthal's HuffPo report from Friday about what the Democrats plan to do if they win back the House in November. With Trump in the White House and the Senate tied in knots (or worse), forget any real legislative accomplishments. What they will gain, however are committee chairs, subpoena power and the ability to investigate and hold hearings.

Democratic members on the committee have asked the Republican majority to issue subpoenas related to the administration’s conduct 52 times during the first 20 months of Donald Trump’s presidency. Republicans turned down each of those 52 requests. If Democrats held the committee gavel, the subpoenas would be approved.

Vigorous use of the subpoena power, which was granted to Congress to oversee the executive branch, could bring real attention to the many stories of inept governance, malicious policy and outright corruption that seem to bubble up as brief controversies, only to sink under the flood of the president’s Twitter froth.

“If Democrats win the majority in November, we would finally do what Republicans have refused to do, and that is conduct independent, fact-based, and credible investigations of the Trump Administration to address issues like the security clearance process, conflicts of interest, the numerous attempts by Republicans to strip away healthcare from millions of Americans, postal service reforms, prescription drug pricing, and voting rights,” Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD), the ranking Democrat on the oversight committee, said in a statement.

The 52 subpoena requests fell into three categories. First, Trump administration and Trump Organization corruption, conflicts of interest and violations of norms of good governance. Second, the committee’s core oversight functions, including agency reorganizations, the issuance of security clearances and the 2020 census. And third, overall issues of waste, fraud and abuse.

Here are just a dozen of the general investigations we can look forward to:

• Trump's corruption
• Kushner's corruption
• Putin-Gate
• 2020 Census
• Security clearances
• hurricane response in Puerto Rico
• AT&T-TimeWarner merger
• the proposed gag rule for Title X family planning
• loyalty tests
• Flint water disaster
• Niger ambush
• politicized hiring of immigration judges

Oh, yeah... and the kidnapping of children at the border. That one alone should last at least right into 2020.

With The DCCC Slapped Down, Syracuse Is Coming Home To The Democrats In November

Dana Balter beat the DCCC-- now she's on track to beating John Katko

I've been saying it for years-- Cook is a good resource, the day after the election. Their ratings are a joke... way behind reality on the ground. If they say a race is a toss up, it usually means it's in the bag for the challenger. If they claim a race is leaning Republican, it means, it's a toss up. Cook has rated NY-24 (Syracuse), "likely Republican." That's insane. Once the progressive, non-DCCC candidate, Dana Balter, beat the status quo shill the DCCC was pushing, the race should have been rated a toss up.

The incumbent, Republican John Katko, tries to paint himself as a "moderate" or a "Mainstream conservative." By the standards of his district, he isn't. He's another Trump enabling rubber stamp. On the Trump-affinity scoreboard FiveThirtyEight keeps updating, Katko ranks an 89.9%-- he just rubberstamps the whole Trump platform, including Trump's anti-healthcare agenda and anti-environment agenda. Based on the political realities of the district, FiveThirtyEight predicted Katko's score would be a 60.0%, not an 89.9%. In 2008 Obama beat McCain 56-42% here and then beat Romney 57-41%. Even Hillary won-- 48.9% to 45.3%. The PVI is D+3 and the only reason there's a Republican incumbent is because the DCCC keeps shoving terrible conservatives down the throats of the voters. They tried it again this cycle and the voters ran them out of town on a rail.

Working against the will of the local Democrats, the DCCC added Juanita Perez Williams to their Red-to-Blue page and then worked against Dana Balter. The result:

• Dana Balter- 13,892 (62.62%)
• Juanita Perez Williams- 8,291 (37.38%)

Had Williams won the primary, Cook would have been correct-- lean Republican. But with the DCCC finally unable to slip another Republican-lite candidate into the race, there's no reason to imagine Balter will replace Katko. Of course, the DCCC pouted and fumed but has finally come around to realize they have to get on the bandwagon and help, even if they hate progressives. And a new poll by PPP released yesterday bears that out. Look at this-- even the DCCC can understand these numbers... and rushed to add Balter to their Red-to-Blue list.

Healthy hatred for Trump and Trumpism, Katko's negative job performance ratings, opposition to the Republican agenda... all add up to one thing: Balter, who is just getting known to the general election voters, is already ahead 47-43%. And once pollsters told voters more about how Katko actually voted on specific pieces of legislation, Balter goes up to 48% and he sinks to 42%. Had the DCCC not interfered in primaries around the country, the Democrats would be looking at 70 House flips, not 40.

The DCCC Has A Pattern Of Bad Behavior In Syracuse-- One That Loses The Seat... And Here They Go Again

Republican John Katko isn't worried-- DCCC bungling keeps him in his blue seat

Why is Republican John Katko, the congressman in NY-24-- the Syracuse-based district that includes all of Onondaga County and Syracuse plus all of Cayuga County plus parts of Oswego and Wayne counties. The PVI was D+5 in 2015 and D+3 now. Obama won the district both times he ran, 56-42 against McCain and 57-41% against Romney. Even Hillary's pathetic lesser-of-two-evils campaign managed to beat Trump 48.9% to 45.3% but it's worth noting that in the primary, Bernie beat her in 3 of the 4 counties in the district:

• Cayuga- 52.7% to 47.3%
• Onondaga- Hillary won 53.0% to 47.0%
• Oswego- 55.8% to 44.2%
• Wayne- 55.5% to 44.5%

So, again, why is there a Republican incumbent? Let's go back in history. Moderate Republican Sherwood Boehlert was elected in 1982 and served until he retired in 2006, which was a Democratic wave election. Rahm Emanuel made sure a right-wing Blue Dog, Michael Arcuri, got the Democratic nomination. Arcuri was swept into office by the wave (49.8% to 43.1%) but, after running up a shitty GOP-lite record, he was defeated-- predictably-- in the following midterm, 51.2% to 45.3%, when Democrats stayed away from the polls allowing right-wing lunatic Ann Marie Buerkle to beat another DCCC special, New Dem Dan Maffei and then lost to him two years later in 2014 Katko beat Maffei 58.2% to 39.5% after the DCCC puked him up again. And in 2016 the DCCC forced a typically uninspiring EMILY's List nothing into the race (over Berniecrat Eric Kingson)... and that's why Katko is the incumbent. As we mentioned the other day, everyone in the district is furious that the DCCC is up to the old tricks that could help the GOP maintain control with another worthless conservative, Juanita Perez Williams over the local fave, Dana Balter.

The four county Democratic chairs in the 24th Congressional District are speaking out against a national party committee after the surprise entry of Juanita Perez Williams into the race.

The chairs released a joint statement Wednesday criticizing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for "meddling" in the 24th district race. The comments are in response to the DCCC's apparent effort to get Perez Williams, who ran unsuccessfully for Syracuse mayor last year, on the Democratic congressional primary ballot.

"The actions in NY-24 are unfortunately just the latest example of the DCCC not taking into account the work happening at the grassroots this year," the chairs wrote. "From leaders in the Indivisible movement to party and elected officials, we stand united behind our designated nominee, Dana Balter, and against D.C. meddling that has hampered far too many races thus far.

"We call on DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Lujan and all staff involved to speak to the people doing the work on the ground and focus our collective energy and resources, like we have been for over a year, in unseating Trump-Ryan Republicans like John Katko."

The disgusting DCCC, responsible for the loss of dozens and dozens of seats over the last decade, gave the 4 county chairs the finger. And this morning the local press came down on Lujan and his inept staff of determined losers again.

A large collection of activists, including members of the Indivisible movement in central New York, reiterated its support for Dana Balter and questioned why the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee would intervene in the primary election.

The grassroots groups released a four-paragraph statement in response to Juanita Perez Williams' entry into the 24th Congressional District race and reports that the DCCC, the House Democrats' campaign arm, is assisting Perez Williams with her attempt to qualify for the June 26 primary ballot.

The DCCC's involvement comes at a pivotal point in the campaign. Candidates are facing a Thursday deadline to submit at least 1,250 valid signatures to qualify for the Democratic primary.

Balter, D-Syracuse, has been a candidate for Congress for seven months and won the Democratic designation from the four county committees in February. Two of her potential primary opponents, Scott Comegys and Anne Messenger, dropped out after the designation process. A third, Bill Bass, remained in the race but is now planning to run as an independent.

Last week, Perez Williams entered the race. She told The Citizen Thursday night that it was her decision to run for Congress and believes she is the best candidate to challenge U.S. Rep. John Katko, a two-term Republican.

The statement from members of central New York progressive groups doesn't mention Perez Williams. But they do question why the DCCC would intervene, especially this late in the process.

"Right now, they are paying people to pass petitions to get their handpicked candidate on the ballot," the activists wrote. "The DCCC is imposing its priorities and decisions on local residents. Instead of fostering a collaborative relationship with grassroots organizations, they are using their funds to erase our work."

The DCCC hasn't commented on its role in the 24th district race or its apparent support for Perez Williams' campaign.

The groups supporting Balter are familiar with her because of her work as an activist in the region. Before launching her congressional bid, she was a prominent member of the Central New York Solidarity Coalition, a group that formed after the 2016 election to oppose President Donald Trump's agenda.

There were "extensive endorsement processes," the grassroots groups said, to support a candidate in the 24th Congressional District race. They added that Balter is their "unanimous choice."

National Democrats hope for a "blue wave" in November. The party believes that they can at least win back the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate. To regain the House majority, they must win in districts like the 24th.

But party infighting, at least in the 24th district, could jeopardize the Democrats' chances of winning in November.

"The DCCC has promised to focus on grassroots strength and listen to the people who live in districts," the coalition of activists wrote. "We call on the DCCC to honor their commitments, stop their activities immediately and instead join all of us in our support of Dana Balter."

In Austin, Nancy Pelosi, who was suffering another bout of increasingly reoccurring senility, announced that if the DCCC doesn't get the crap conservative candidates it wants, it won't help the Democrats win in November. Chew on that.