Can Corruption In Government Be Legislated Out Of Existence By... Corrupt Politicians?

While the DCCC (+ EMILY's List and the Republican billionaires funding No Labels) are busy making sure conservative, status quo Democrats prevail in primaries, stalwart progressives are offering hope to voters by offering new programs that will never be passed, largely because even with a big Democratic majority in the House, too many of them will always oppose anything they sense is "too progressive." Take, for example, Elizabeth Warren's just-introduced Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act. It may make sense to average Americans, but average congressional careerists will recoil from it in horror. This is what it feels to do:

• Padlock the Revolving Door and Increase Public Integrity by eliminating both the appearance and the potential for financial conflicts of interest; banning Members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and other senior government officials from owning and trading individual stock; locking the government-to-lobbying revolving door; and eliminating "golden parachutes."

• End Lobbying as We Know It by exposing all influence-peddling in Washington; banning foreign lobbying; banning lobbyists from donating to candidates and Members of Congress; strengthening congressional independence from lobbyists; and instituting a lifetime ban on lobbying by former Members of Congress, Presidents, and agency heads.

• End Corporate Capture of Public Interest Rules by requiring disclosure of funding or editorial conflicts of interest in rulemaking comments and studies; closing loopholes corporations exploit to tilt the rules in their favor and against the public interest; protecting agencies from corporate capture; establishing a new Office of Public Advocate to advocate for the public interest in the rulemaking process; and giving agencies the tools to implement strong rules that protect the public.

• Improve Judicial Integrity and Defend Access to Justice for All Americans by enhancing the integrity of the judicial branch; requiring the Supreme Court follow the ethics rules for all other federal judges; boosting the transparency of federal appellate courts through livestreaming audio of proceedings; and encouraging diversity on the federal bench.

• Strengthen Enforcement of Anti-Corruption, Ethics, and Public Integrity Laws by creating a new, independent anti-corruption agency dedicated to enforcing federal ethics laws and by expanding an independent and empowered Congressional ethics office insulated from Congressional politics.

• Boost Transparency in Government and Fix Federal Open Records Laws by requiring elected officials and candidates for federal office to disclose more financial and tax information; increasing disclosure of corporate money behind Washington lobbying; closing loopholes in federal open records laws; making federal contractors - including private prisons and immigration detention centers - comply with federal open records laws; and making Congress more transparent.

The immediate headline wasn't that Elizabeth Warren is taking on corruption but that Elizabeth Warren wants to ban members of Congress from owning individual stocks. And who has to vote on that again?

Doesn't this seem more consequential and more important for the public good?

Warren's bill would also impose a lifetime ban on lobbying for presidents and federal lawmakers, and would bar U.S. lobbyists from using foreign cash to affect American policy. It would slap new taxes on "excessive lobbying" of more than $500,000 a year. It would bind Supreme Court justices to a code of conduct recognized by other federal judges.

In her speech Monday, Warren began by establishing how mistrusted government is today. In 1958, 73% of Americans said they trusted the government to do the right thing most of the time. After Watergate the number went down to 36% and this year the number is... 18%. "Not even one in five Americans today," Warren told her fellow senators, "trust their government to do the right thing. I'd love to stand here and tell you that this was some sudden drop after Donald Trump was elected, but that wouldn't be true. This problem is far bigger than Trump. The way I see it, a loss of faith this broad, and this profound, is more than a problem-- it is a crisis. A crisis of faith. This is the kind of crisis that leads people to turn away from democracy. The kind of crisis that forces people to stop believing in what we can do together. The kind of crisis that creates fertile ground for cynicism and discouragement. The kind of crisis that gives rise to authoritarians."

She went on to talk about how conservatives have denigrated the role of government. She obliquely referred to Reagan, but I couldn't help but think of the obscure Ohio Democratic congressional candidate in OH-01, Aftab Pureval who I mentioned yesterday as a Republican-lite candidate running on a platform of shrinking government. "Government," she explained, "can be a powerful force for good-- but only when it works for the people. And the American people understand that today, it doesn't. Our national crisis of faith in government boils down to this simple fact: people don't trust their government to do the right thing because they think government works for the rich, the powerful and the well-connected and not for the American people... They're right."

At a time when this country faces enormous challenges, our government actively serves the richest and most powerful and turns its back on everyone else.

At a time of skyrocketing inequality and stagnant wages for the middle class, our government is giving gargantuan handouts to the wealthiest Americans.

At a time when mass incarceration grinds down human beings and destroys communities of color, our government is putting more cash into the for-profit prison industry.

At a time when sea levels are rising and the health threats posed by climate change are accelerating by the day, our government is handing over both taxpayer money and federally protected lands to the fossil fuel industry.

At a time of staggering drug prices and soaring out of pocket costs, our government tucks tail and runs away from any serious challenge to big Pharma and greedy insurance companies.

At a time of crippling student loan debt, our government is bending over backwards to help bogus for-profit colleges and student loan companies get richer by cheating students.

Across the board, our government-our government-is failing to fix the problems that face our working families. Instead, it's making the problems worse by giving more money, more power, and more advantages to those who already have all three.

And so often-- whether it leads to poisoned water or toxic bank loans-- communities of color are hit first and hit hardest. Our government systematically favors the rich over the poor, the donor class over the working class, the well-connected over the disconnected.

This is deliberate, and we need to call this what it is-- corruption, plain and simple.

Corruption has seeped into the fabric of our government, tilting thousands of decisions away from the public good and toward the desires of those at the top. And, over time, bit by bit, like a cancer eating away at our democracy, corruption has eroded Americans' faith in our government.

I know that's a stark assessment. But I'm not here to describe the death of democracy. I'm here to talk about fighting back. I'm here because I believe that change is hard, but change is possible.

Change can start with reforming how our largest companies operate. Last week, I introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, which would restore the once-common idea that giant American corporations should look out for a broad range of American stakeholders. By requiring our largest companies to seat workers on their boards, limiting the ability of executives to get rich quick off short-term stock price bumps, and giving shareholders and Directors a real say in corporate political spending, this bill could go a long way toward restoring real economic democracy in America. And in the process, it would ensure that when American businesses engage with our government, they are speaking on behalf of their entire communities-- and not simply as megaphones for the wealthy and the powerful.

Getting American corporations to start acting like responsible American citizens is an important first step toward limiting corruption. But broader changes are needed.

Today, I'm introducing the most ambitious anti-corruption legislation proposed in Congress since Watergate. This is an aggressive set of reforms that would fundamentally change the way Washington does business. These reforms have one simple aim: to take power in Washington away from the wealthy, the powerful, and the well-connected who have corrupted our government and put power back in the hands of the American people.

We can do this. We must do this. And when we do, we will restore the faith of the American people-- not just in our government, but faith in democracy itself.

The recent explosion of big political spending has delivered a gut-punch to our democracy. I do what I can by not taking any PAC money or any money from federal lobbyists. There's a lot of work to do on campaign finance, starting with overturning Citizens United. But that's not nearly enough. The corrupting influence of big money in Washington reaches much further than political campaigns.

Big money eats away at the heart of our democracy. Over the last few decades, it has created a pervasive culture of soft corruption that colors virtually every important decision in Washington.

Consider a couple of examples:

First, the rich and powerful buy their way into Congressional offices. Exhibit A: Mick Mulvaney. After he left Congress, Mulvaney told a roomful of bankers that he had a rule in his office: if a lobbyist didn't give him money, the lobbyist didn't get a meeting-he met only with those lobbyists who ponied up for his campaign war chest. Today, Mulvaney is President Trump's head of the Office of Management and Budget and the person running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And when he made these comments right out in public with the press listening in, Trump and pretty much every Republican in Washington just shrugged.

The rich and powerful also offer up some pretty nice gifts for public servants to do their bidding. In the early 2000s, Congressman Billy Tauzin started pushing an idea: expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs. Good for seniors-in fact, life saving for some. But also very good for Big Pharma-more prescriptions filled, more money coming in.

And it might all have landed there, with seniors getting drug coverage and drug companies selling more drugs-- but Big Pharma wanted more.  Number one on their list was a flat prohibition on the worrisome possibility that the government might actually negotiate for lower drug prices.  And Billy delivered-- which I'm sure had nothing to do with the more than $200,000 in campaign contributions the Congressman received from the drug industry.

Today, Big Pharma rakes in billions from seniors on Medicare while charging sky-high prices for the drugs they need-and no one in government can negotiate those prices. And what happened to Billy?

In December of 2003, the very same month the bill was signed into law, PhRMA-- the drug companies' biggest lobbying group-- dangled the possibility that Billy could be their next CEO.

In February of 2004, Congressman Tauzin announced that he wouldn't seek re-election. Ten months later, he became CEO of PhRMA-- at an annual salary of $2 million. Big Pharma certainly knows how to say "thank you for your service."

Sometimes the payoff comes upfront.  Goldman Sachs handed Gary Cohn over a quarter of a billion dollars on his way out the door to become the head of President Trump's National Economic Council. A quarter of a billion dollars to help quarterback a tax package that included giveaways worth just over a quarter of a billion to Goldman-- in the first quarter of 2018 alone. That's quite the return on investment for Goldman Sachs. For the taxpayers who paid Mr. Cohn's salary and were under the mistaken impression that Mr. Cohn was working for them, the return was not so good.

The examples are everywhere these days. A Commerce Secretary who acts like a cartoon version of a Wall Street fat cat, awash in financial conflicts, intertwined with Russian financial interests, suspected of swindling millions from his business partners and using his official position to pump up his fortune through shady stock trading. An EPA Administrator who resigns in disgrace over corruption, only to be replaced with another EPA Administrator who belongs in the coal baron's hall of fame. A Congressman facing indictment for insider trading.

Let's face it: there's no real question that the Trump era has given us the most nakedly corrupt leadership this nation has seen in our lifetimes. But they are not the cause of the rot-- they're just the biggest, stinkiest example of it.

Corruption is a form of public cancer, and Washington's got it bad. It's time for treatment, time to isolate and quarantine the ability of big money to infect the decisions made every day by every branch of our government.

...Washington corruption is not a small problem, and it will not be rooted out with small solutions. In addition to the big changes I talked about today, my legislation contains dozens more ideas to promote clean government, from giant reforms to small tweaks and everything in between.

These changes will require everyone who runs for or who holds office to change at least some of their practices-- including me. Many of these ideas challenge the most fundamental assumptions about how business is currently done in our nation's capital. Inside Washington, some of these proposals will be very unpopular, even with some of my friends. Outside Washington, I expect that most people will see these ideas as no-brainers and be shocked they're not already the law.

I'm sure the people who make big money off the current system will yell and scream and spend millions of dollars trying to stop these changes. And the all-day-long pundits and Washington insiders who live in the same neighborhoods and eat at the same sushi bars and go to the same book parties will say ‘this will never pass' and try to color me naïve for even trying. But it's that kind of self-serving group-think that's allowed corruption to spread through this town for decades.

Besides, such nay-saying ignores our history: Our country has responded to deep corruption with bold action before.

I won't pretend to be sure I've gotten everything exactly right. I'm willing and eager to discuss the details.  My bill proposes a year-long transition for people to adapt to the new system before these changes would go into effect. But here is my promise: I plan to fight to pass as many of these reforms as possible. I believe we can break the stranglehold that the wealthy and well-connected hold over our government. I believe we can get our democracy working again.

Kara Eastman, the progressive Democrat who is tearing it up in Omaha with her powerful door-to-door grassroots campaign, agrees with Warren. "One thing that most voters I speak with at their doors agree on is that money and corruption in politics and Washington are a fundamental threat to our democracy. As a non-millionaire running for Congress, I have seen first-hand how difficult fundraising can be and therefore, how challenging it is to be viewed as a viable candidate. Public servants in general are no longer beholden to their constituents but rather to large corporations and wealthy donors. We desperately need to bring government back to the people and start serving regular working Americans in order to get our country back on track."

Russ Feingold was one of the first endorsers: "This bill is a bold and comprehensive set of policy solutions that would fundamentally change the way Washington works. It includes new protections against runaway campaign spending, but it also addresses the broad, corrupting influence of corporations over federal government policymaking." And another Wisconsinite is as enthusiastic as Feingold. Yesterday Randy Bryce told me that "It’s a simple choice. Serve people or serve oneself. Citizens United opened up the floodgates to corruption and a terrific way to show one is running to put others first is to get behind Senator Warren with this."

My friend Roberto Rodriguez, a former congressional candidate and an Obama Treasury Department official, came up with a good idea:

Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, was certainly enthusiastic. "There is a danger," he noted, "that the spotlight on President Donald Trump’s outrageous transgressions of ethics standards and unprecedented, global conflicts of interest will blind us to the more pervasive corporate corruption of our government. Corporate corruption has hit its nadir with the Trump administration, but it is a historical, structural and bipartisan problem. That is why Public Citizen is so enthused to endorse Warren’s breakthrough Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, sweeping legislation to root out corporate corruption and return our government to We the People... No single reform, nor even any single set of reforms, can solve this problem. But Warren’s bill would peel away layers of corruption. Too frequently-- indeed, characteristically in the Trump administration-- revolving door lobbyists and corporate representatives gain control of regulatory agencies, putting them in charge of setting and enforcing the rules for the very industries they previously represented and, typically, will represent again after leaving government. The Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act slams shut the revolving door, significantly through the creation of a new legal category of 'corporate lobbyist,' for whom revolving door rules are airtight... If adopted and coupled with comprehensive campaign finance reform, the American people would regain faith in their government, which would again start working for the people, not the rich and powerful. That’s what’s at stake, and it’s why this anti-corruption legislation is so desperately needed."

Beware The Honeyed Words Coming From The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party

Wall Street Joe Crowley-- the establishment Dems want to elevate him now

Democrats aren't going to win back the House in 2018 by spending all their energy whining about Trump's over-the-cliff appointees-- no matter how bizarre Steve Bannon is-- and the growing influence of other far right fringe players, like Ted Cruz adviser, psychotic Islamophobe Frank Gaffney. Hillary hoped to win by emphasizing outreach to "moderate" Republicans. That didn't work out; the college educated suburban whites her campaign was based on reaching abandoned her and went "home" to Trump in the last week. Maybe if she had spent more time with a populist message that appealed to the Democratic base, she would have won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania... and the presidency.

This morning, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party gave the Washington Post an OpEd about their vision of "fixing" the Democratic Party. Jon Cowan is the president of Third Way and Jim Kessler is their senior vice president for policy and the key word in their column was "but." I'll get to that in a moment. But first let me dispel a perception that they were subtly pushing-- "populists Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Zephyr Teachout (the Bernie Sanders of New York)," they wrote, "lost winnable races." They did lose. But why they lost-- at least in part-- was because the Republican wing of the Democratic Party underfunded them. Let me explain that.

The DSCC and its allies spent $8.3 million backing Feingold. That wasn't nearly enough with the $17.5 million the NRSC put in against Feingold. And what really gets me angry is that the Democrats were far more even in races with conservative Democratic candidates-- like Jason Kander in Missouri. The NRSC and its allies spent about $23.5 million defending Roy Blunt. The DSCC and its allies were close-- $$20.6 million.

Today the Senate Democrats elected Little Chucky Schmucky to be their leader, sealing their fate. He included in his team Elizabeth Warren and balancing factor Mark Warner as vice co- chair of the conference and Bernie in a new position (meant to be a humiliating one), chair of outreach, balanced no doubt, by the announcement that there's also a new made-up job for the most reactionary Democrat in the Senate, Joe Manchin, now the Vice Chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.

The committee ranking members will be:

 • Agriculture: Senator Debbie Stabenow
  • Armed Services: Senator Jack Reed
  • Appropriations: Senator Patrick Leahy
  • Banking: Senator Sherrod Brown
  • Budget: Senator Bernie Sanders
  • Commerce: Senator Bill Nelson
  • Energy: Senator Maria Cantwell
  • Environment: Senator Tom Carper
  • Finance: Senator Ron Wyden
  • Foreign Relations: Senator Ben Cardin
  • Health Education, Labor and Pensions: Senator Patty Murray
  • Homeland Security: Senator Claire McCaskill

It was basically the same story over on the House side. The NRCC and its allies spent $7.1 million attacking Zephyr Teachout. Pelosi's House Majority PAC didn't spend a nickel on Zephyr (ZERO) and the DCCC underspent. They and their allies put in a total of $3.4 million. When the DCCC wants dot support more "moderate" and pliant candidates, they get up with GOP spending. Their biggest race was for the open PA-08 race. The NRCC and its allies spent $8 million, The DCCC and its allies spent $7.3 million, close enough. Same thing in NV-03, another open seat (which the Democrats took)-- where the NRCC and its allies spent $9.6 million to hold the seat and where the Democrats responded with a healthy $7.2 million.

It's important to keep in mind that the Republican wing of the party-- the New Dems, the Blue Dogs, Third Way, the Beltway organizations dominated by K Street and Wall Street money-- aren't interested in helping progressive reformers win. Some of the biggest progressive wins from last week-- like Pramila Jayapal (WA), Nanette Barragán (CA), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Jamie Raskin (MD)-- were won with a grand total of zero dollars from the DCCC and the House Majority PAC.

Now... back to Cowan and Kessler' Third Way "but." They wrote that "on social policy, Democrats have to practice what we preach: tolerance. Social policy, thankfully, is the place where all facets of the party are in harmony." [That's most true, though not totally, because so many Blue Dogs and New Dems from that wing of the party have been defeated over the last decade. although the Democratic House conference still harbors, gun-nuts, homophobes, anti-Choicers, etc.] "The fight Democrats have led to fully include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and immigrants in our society, to protect a woman’s right to choose, and to stand for sane gun laws and holistic policing and criminal justice has been a unifying force for Democrats, not a source of division as it was in the 1990s. BUT we need to try to find a path to progress on these vital social issues that deploys less scorn upon those who do not see things completely our way. Sure, there is a fringe element larger than any of us would like who deserve our disapprobation. But there are far more who are just hesitant, weighing the matter, wondering if we’re moving too fast. A little empathy may help. That would make a stronger case, and embody the values we want from others. It only takes being called a racist, homophobe or misogynist once to permanently end a conversation with a potentially reasonable but reluctant voter."

In other words, coddle Republican-lite Democrats and elevate them to leadership positions. That's always the song the New Dems, Third Way and the Blue Dogs sing-- no matter how many times it's proven to be a catastrophic strategy.

Are The Senate Democrats Cutting Their Own Collective Throat By Making Schumer Leader?

Yesterday we took our first look at how dismally the DCCC performed. I'm sure Lujan and his revolving door staff of congenital losers will all get some kind of a performance bonus. After all, they netted 6 seats, right? As I mentioned, Tuesday was even worse for the DSCC. Schumer's insistence at picking the party's nominees is the second biggest catastrophe for the Democrats for the cycle. The Democrats held onto their seats in California, Maryland, Colorado and Nevada and picked up Illinois but they should have won Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin, New Hampshire (which they may have, by a thread), Indiana, Iowa, and Arizona.

A Gravis poll last week showed that had Schumer not interfered in Pennsylvania and allowed Sestak to win the primary, Sestak would have out-performed the horribly flawed McGinty. I suspect Grayson would have out-performed Murphy, PG Sittenfeld would have out-performed Strickland, Hogg would have out-performed Judge and maybe even Baron Hill-- the primary winner who Schumer forced it step aside-- would have out-performed Bayh. We'll never know... because Schumer decided to pick his own team of losers. Had he not pre-empted a good primary race by declaring the unelectable Kirkpatrick the nominee, maybe the primary process would have found someone who could beat McCain. That's what the primary process is for, after all.

In Iowa, Judge did 15 points worse against Grassley than Clinton did against Trump. In Ohio, Strickland did 13 points worse. In Arizona, Kirkpatrick did 8 points worse. In Florida, Murphy did 7 points worse. But Feingold and Ross, whom Schumer did not pick, did only two points worse, the same as Duckworth. The only DSCC recruit who exceeded expectations was Kander, who still lost his race by three points, while Missouri torched Clinton.

Given the fact that the Presidential candidate is the same everywhere, but that each Senate candidate can be nominated to conform to favorable local conditions (important local issues, identity politics, etc.), it's appalling that the great majority of the DSCC picks ran far behind Clinton in their own states. But Schumer knows more than anyone about everything so...

The Senate Democrats have to be crazy to give their leadership position to Schumer. And they are. One furious Senate staffer told me early Wednesday morning that "Our candidates ran three points BEHIND Clinton nationwide.  Leaving aside the incumbents, whom Schumer couldn’t pick, they ran more than SIX POINTS behind Clinton. So Schumer gets to pick absolutely anyone he wants, backed by a quarter of a billion dollars of party money, and he picks such stiffs that they can’t even get close to Clinton in their own states. It’s utterly disgraceful, and it’s why we will never take back control of the Senate as long as he is in charge."

People have been asking me how it was possible that Russ Feingold could have lost. The final score was 1,479,262 (50.2%) to 1,380.496 (46.8%). Trump won the state 1,409,282 (47.9%) to 1,381,923 (46.9%). The NRSC and their allies spent almost 13 million dollars against Feingold. The DSCC and it's allies answered with just 4.7 million, far less than the Democrats spent in other states:

• Pennsylvania- $32.5 million- lost
• New Hampshire- $30.7 million- won?
• Nevada- $18.6 million- won
• North Carolina- $15.7 million- lost
• Indiana- $13.3 million- lost
• Missouri- $8.1 million- lost
• Ohio- $7.9 million- lost

The Senate Races: What’s Really Happening-- A Guest Post From Alan Grayson

Here is your own personal briefing on what’s really going on in the Democrats’ attempt to win back the U.S. Senate. Regarding the individual races, a lot of this is information that you won’t find elsewhere.

The Democrats hold 46 of the 100 seats in the Senate. They need to pick up 4 Republican seats if Clinton wins the White House (because VP Kaine will then cast the deciding vote when the Senate ties 50-50), and they need to pick up 5 Republican seats if the Apocalypse arrives. (I’m looking at you, Trump.)

Team Blue expects to win GOP Senate seats in Illinois and Wisconsin. That looks solid in Illinois, but as I mentioned yesterday, Wisconsin is far less certain. The latest two polls have Democrat Russ Feingold winning by one point and by two points, both within the margin of error. (OTOH, the average voter in Green Bay will see 90(!) Feingold ads in the last two weeks, and “only” 21 for his opponent.) If the Democrats win both IL and WI, that takes them to 48. For a majority, they would need two more Senate seats, or three more if flesh melts and the twelve plagues return. There are six Senate races where the polling has been within the margin of error for months. Five of those are GOP seats: New Hampshire, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Indiana. One is a Democratic seat: Nevada. Since one of these is Democratic, if Hillary wins, and the Democratic Senate candidates in IL and WI win, then the Democrats need to win three of these six seats to take a majority in the Senate. Here is what’s happening in each of these six Senate races:

New Hampshire: The GOP incumbent, Ayotte, has led in five of the six polls this week, but only by two points. Her campaign is out of cash, and neither the GOP nor the Koch Brothers are beating the drum for her. The Democrat, Hassan, is looking to spend a ridiculous $8 million on TV ads in the last two weeks of the campaign. But Trump is surging in New Hampshire, and the state is extremely polarized. I honestly don’t know whether the GOP has cut its spending because they think Ayotte is going to lose, or because she has it in the bag.

Missouri: The corrupt GOP incumbent, Blunt, may have enlisted every single family member to become a paid lobbyist. That would seem to invite a populist, progressive Democratic challenge, but the Democrat, Kander, probably is the most right-wing Democratic Senate candidate in the country. This race has been extremely close for the last two months, since Kander started running an ad featuring him assembling a rifle blindfolded. (Remember, a neighboring state, Iowa, elected Joni Ernst to the Senate when she ran an ad bragging about her castrating pigs.) However, Romney carried Missouri by ten points just four years ago, so it’s just not blue territory. Most of the money being spent in the last two weeks of the race is from Super PACs, $5 million for the GOP and $2 million for the Dems. The average voter in St. Louis will see 71 GOP ads during that time. Advantage: GOP.



North Carolina: The GOP incumbent, Burr, has been ahead in six of the polls during the last two weeks. His Democratic challenger, Deborah Ross, has been ahead in three. Two polls were tied. Burr and Ross are essentially spending equal amounts of money on TV in the last two weeks, but they have become bit players in this drama, thanks to the national parties and the Super PACs. The Democrats are spending $8 million, and the Republicans (and allies) are spending $13 million. The average voter in Charlotte will see 62 Democratic TV ads and 87 GOP TV ads, in 14 days. If that doesn’t make you want to switch to Netflix, I don’t know what would. Burr seems to have a slight advantage.

Pennsylvania: The GOP incumbent, Toomey, has had a lot of trouble trying to figure out whether he should like Donald Trump or hate him. His Democratic challenger, McGinty, is essentially just hoping for all the Clinton votes, since Clinton has won every Presidential poll in Pennsylvania since June-- until yesterday, when a GOP polling firm reported a tie in both the Presidential race and the Senate race. In the final two weeks, the Democrats are being hugely outspent on TV: $12 million for the GOP versus $4 million for the Democrats. The national Democrat Party wasted $4 million on the primary back in April, helping McGinty to defeat Democrat Joe Sestak even though Sestak polled far better against Toomey (and still does, as the Huffington Post reported yesterday). The Democrats sure could use that money now. But if the African-American vote in Philadelphia remains high, as it was for the primary, then McGinty may squeak in.

Indiana: It looks like the Democrats have blown this one. The GOP incumbent is retiring, and the Democrats recruited former Senator Evan Bayh (and his $10 million of “cash on hand”) into the race just before the filing deadline. But Bayh’s cash has evaporated, and the recent revelation that he was auditioning for Wall Street during his last term in the Senate has been something of a turn-off for independent voters. Here again, the GOP is vastly outspending the Democrats on TV in the last two weeks: $7 million for the GOP versus $1.5 million for the Democrats. And, of course, this was red territory to start with. It sure looks like Bayh will lose.

Nevada: In the one Democratic seat out of these six close races, the Democrats are, as usual, being outspent on TV in the last two weeks: $9 million for the GOP versus $6.5 million for the Democrats. But a lot of the Democratic money is candidate money, and candidates (by law) get cheaper TV rates. Thus in Reno, the GOP is spending twice as much, but the Democrats are getting twice the air time. The polling has been all over the place; last week, within 24 hours, one pollster claimed that the Democrat was winning by six points, and another claimed that she was losing by seven. I suspect that heavy Hispanic turnout in Nevada, as reported for early voting, will keep this seat in Democratic hands.

And Florida? Patrick Murphy was doomed the moment that his father reneged on the $10 million pledge that bought Murphy the nomination.

Bottom line: I see 49 seats for the Democrats, but I’m not overly optimistic about 50. I wish that these hand-picked Democratic Senate candidates had run more substantive campaigns, and given the voters solid reasons to vote for them. All around the country, the GOP Senate candidates are preaching the gospel of lower taxes, deregulation, fiscal prudence and small government, while the Democrats are primarily heaping scorn on Donald Trump-- with the Presidential race virtually tied.

Except for Russ Feingold, who has run a principled progressive campaign from Day One. And there is no way-- absolutely no way-- that the Democrats can take back the Senate if Russ Feingold loses. Therefore I ask you, one more time, to contribute to Russ Feingold’s Senate campaign.

When you look around the country, and you see how thoroughly DC party bosses have purged liberal candidates, you realize that a progressive is a terrible thing to waste.

Courage,
Rep. Alan Grayson

Maddow May Not Get It, But Supporting Progressives Like Russ Feingold And Zephyr Teachout Isn't The Same As Backing ConservaDems Like Patrick Murphy And Pete Gallego

Early voting has started and, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, Hillary leads Trump by a whopping 15 points among the 19 million Americans who have already cast their ballots-- leading not just in blue states but in Ohio, Arizona and, yes, even Texas. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are out on the road, working their asses off for Democratic candidates-- and although they've been smart enough and shown enough integrity to avoid pimping the worst of the Democratic establishment monstrosities (like Evan Bayh, Patty Justice, Ann Kirkpatrick and, worst of all, Patrick Murphy, who they can leave the the smartest dumbbell in TV news to pimp instead)-- I often wonder if they're getting any guarantees at all from moderates like Katie McGinty (PA), Maggie Hassan (NH), Kamala Harris (CA), and Tammy Duckworth (IL) to back a progressive agenda. We'll see, I guess.

Two people both Warren and Sanders are pushing in a major way certainly don't need to be asked for any guarantees at all. There is, after all, no reason to think Russ Feingold (WI) and Zephyr Teachout (NY) won't be every bit as powerfully committed to working families than Warren and Sanders are themselves. Yesterday, within minutes of far right billionaire Diana Hendricks giving neo-fascist incumbent Ron Johnson a cool $5,000,000 for his SuperPAC, Bernie sent a letter to his followers reminding them that Russ isn't just another hack politician the DSCC is trying to pass off as a progressive.

All across our country, as a result of the disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, billionaires are trying to buy elections for candidates who will represent the wealthy and the powerful.

There is no better example of this than in Wisconsin, where big money interests are spending millions to defeat progressive champion Russ Feingold. Russ, throughout his career, has led the effort for campaign finance reform, civil rights, the protection of our privacy and the needs of working people. He opposed the war in Iraq, led the effort against the Patriot Act and wants to see that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

It should be no surprise, therefore, that the Koch Brothers and the billionaire class want to keep Russ out of the Senate. The problem is, they're spending so much money in Wisconsin's Senate race that Russ could lose.

The billionaire class has already spent $7.5 million in outside spending to defeat Russ. He's seen his lead in the polls cut by more than half.

In my mind, this is exactly the kind of grotesque spending by millionaires and billionaires which is moving our country toward an oligarchic form of society. We need to overturn Citizens United, we need real campaign finance reform, and we need a progressive Senate

We need to help Russ Feingold win his election, and that means all of us need to stand together right now to support Russ.

...It is absolutely critical for Russ Feingold to win his election if we want to win a majority of seats in the Senate. As you know well, Paul Ryan is terrified of the prospect of losing the Senate.

Just imagine how much Paul Ryan doesn't want to see Senators Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold working together.

You have already raised nearly $2.5 million to help candidates for the House and Senate since last week. Your contributions are completely changing races for Congress across the country.

Now we must focus our attention directly to support Russ Feingold. His race is critically important, and we need people to stand together to take on billionaires trying to buy this election.

Warren has made similar efforts for Feingold. And, by the way, if you want to send him any last minute contributions to help combat that $5 million he got from Hendricks-- who has given $5 million to Rick Scott's PAC, $5 million to the Koch brothers PAC, and millions more to right-wing candidates and organizations coast to coast-- you can do it on the Blue America Senate 2016 page.





Both Warren and Sanders have also been supportive of Zephyr Teachout's race. Again, Republican billionaires-- this time Paul Singer and Robert Mercer-- have been pouring incredible sums into the race against Zephyr, who is leading by 3 points in a new poll, doing even better than Hillary in the district! Zephyr has been crushing her lobbyist opponent, John Faso, in the debates and this week the biggest newspaper in the district, the Poughkeepsie Journal endorsed her. "Voters in the 19th Congressional District," they wrote, "are facing a fascinating choice between two starkly different candidates."

Republican John Faso has plenty of political experience as a state legislator and knows the area well, having lived here for decades.

Democrat Zephyr Teachout, a sharp law professor at Fordham University, ran a spirited campaign in her party’s primary against Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2014. She is new to the area but would bring a fresh perspective to Washington and governance in general. Voters have plenty of compelling reasons to give her that opportunity.

The  two candidates recently exchanged ideas at a Poughkeepsie Journal Editorial Board meeting. That meeting was nuanced and substantive, indicative of the fact that voters will be choosing between two qualified candidates here.

Teachout wisely acknowledged she would have to work across the political aisle to get anything accomplished, recognizing the House of Representatives is most likely going to remain in GOP control after the November elections. And she pointed to specific places, such as in the fight against Lyme disease and getting broadband to rural places, where political consensus can and should be reached.

Let’s be clear: Teachout would have to employ such a strategy to be successful.

For his part, Faso is a veteran lawmaker who once served as state Assembly minority leader and unsuccessfully ran for state comptroller and governor. In the private sector, he has served as a lobbyist.

In general, Faso supports cutting taxes and regulations. He is in favor of lowering the maximum corporate rate but closing loopholes and limiting deductions. He also has offered several sound specific policies, including changing the tax code so that businesses could fully deduct investments in new equipment or technology in the same year those purchases were made. He believes this would be particularly helpful to small businesses, farmers and manufacturers, and he is right.

Teachout wants to close loopholes on hedge fund managers who exploit laws to get around paying a higher tax rate and end “taxpayer funded giveaways to oil and gas companies.”

She said more investment should be made to alternative energy sources, pointing to a fact that the Poughkeepsie Journal has long stated, “Renewable energy is not on an even playing field right now.”

Teachout would clearly be a strong defender of the Hudson River and the environment in general, calling for more cleanup of pollution in the river, opposing the Coast Guard’s  large-vessel anchoring proposal and being out front in the fight against hydrofracking.

Teachout also was the first national director of the Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan group trying to make Congress more open and transparent, something that voters can be assured would be a high priority for her if elected.

To his credit, Faso did come across as more far moderate at the Editorial Board meeting than his voting record in the Assembly would suggest. He noted, for example, that a compromise is needed to keep Social Security solvent for generations and that raising the federal minimum wage should be looked at.

The Poughkeepsie Journal would urge the winner of this race to look at the person vacating this seat, Republican Chris Gibson, as a strong model. Gibson decided not to run again this year, but he built a strong and deserved reputation as a knowledgeable, honorable lawmaker willing to work across the political aisle.

At our meeting, Teachout acknowledged Gibson’s fine work, and she definitely brings a new and welcomed energy to politics. Voters should give her two years to see if she can use that energy and her intelligence to serve the district in the most fitting and admirable way.

As of yesterday, outside Republican groups had poured $5,470,727 into the race. The DCCC has responded, weakly, with $1,556,183. (They save most of their big money for Blue Dogs and New Dems like Pete Gallego, Joe Garcia, Josh Gottheimer and Charlie Crist, not for progressives like Zephyr.) Please consider giving her Get Out the Vote efforts a boost by tapping on the thermometer below:

A Quick Senate Scorecard

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

by Gaius Publius

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

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

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

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

For reference, the state of the Senate today is:

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

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

Washouts (+2 D)

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

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

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

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

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

Net result: +2 Democrats.

From Electoral-Vote.com:

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

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

No Change

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

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

The Hill on Bennet:

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

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

Possible Flips (+2 D, Maybe)

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

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

Pennsylvania, currently Republican
Leader is McGinty (D)

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

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

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

The Hill on the Pennsylvania race:

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

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

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

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

Too Close To Call (A Wash)

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

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

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

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

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

Subtotal (+2 D or +4 D)

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

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

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

Wild Card Race: Alaska

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

Howie has written about the Alaska race here:

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

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

More from Electoral-vote.com (my emphasis)

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

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

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

Net change (if Schumer succeeds): None.

Your Most Likely 2017 Senate

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

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

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

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

GP

How Much Is Trump Counting On Putin To Help Him Win In November?

Last night Russ Feingold's campaign sent an e-mail to his followers saying that "Donald Trump just encouraged Russia to commit cyberattacks against Americans... Trump held a press conference on national security that reaffirmed just how truly dangerous he is-- and utterly unfit to be the president of the United States." He's the law and order candidate? That actually sounds illegal. I mean in Florida yesterday, he seemed to be calling on Russian spy agencies-- his allies?-- to hack American organizations to find dirt on Hillary Clinton. No, he really did, causing Leon Panetta to say that "No presidential candidate who's running to be president of the United States ought to be asking a foreign country, particularly Russia, to engage in hacking or intelligence efforts to try to determine what the Democratic candidate may or may not be doing...This just is beyond my own understanding of the responsibilities that candidates have to be loyal to their country and to their country alone, not to reach out to somebody like Putin and Russia, and try to engage them in an effort to try to, in effect, conduct a conspiracy against another party."

Trump surrogate Newt Gingrich said Trump was only joking but Pence, clearly embarrassed, ran to a microphone and said if the Russians do what Trump told them to they'd be in big trouble. What is wrong with this crew of lunatics? Trump, who is being financially supported to the tune of over $600 million by Putin puppets, used to brag about how he and Putin met in a 60 Minutes green room and got along famously. That was a total fabrication and yesterday Trump reversed himself and said "I never met Putin, I don't know who Putin is. He said one nice thing about me." Remember when Trump lied to the American public by claiming, "I know him well" so definitively?

Still, Putin must have been delighted that Trump announced he may recognize Russia's seizure of the Crimea from Ukraine and withdraw from the NATO sanctions against Russia if he's elected. That might even be the kernel of a good idea, but not as part of a political campaign.

Now Trump says he was joking or being sarcastic. They Trump campaign is looking for an excuse that flies and takes off the pressure. Which looks right to you? His tired stand-up comedy shtik or sarcasm?



This morning, in his NY Times column, Nick Kristof explained why Putin is trying too make sure Trump is the next president of the United States, starting with 2 important quotes from Russia experts, first from Stanford Prof. Michael McFaul, U.S. Ambassador to Russia (2011-2014): "'It’s crystal clear to me' that Putin favors Trump. 'If I were Putin, I would rather deal with Trump, too, given the things he has said about foreign policy.'" And later in the column, from Brookings Institution security expert Benjamin Wittes: "I think the most likely explanation is that someone in Russian intelligence, probably very high up, decided to help Donald Trump."

The reason Moscow favors Trump isn’t some conspiracy. It’s simply that Putin dislikes Clinton, while Trump’s combination of international ignorance and catastrophic policies would benefit Putin. In particular, Trump’s public doubts about NATO renounce more than half a century of bipartisan orthodoxy on how to deal with Russia, and undermine the Western alliance that checks Putin.

One nightmare of security specialists is Russia provoking unrest among ethnic Russians in Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania and then using rioting as an excuse to intervene. NATO members would be obliged to respond, but frankly it’s not clear that they would-- and Trump’s loose rhetoric increases the risk of paralysis and a collapse of the alliance.

In that sense, Trump poses a national security risk to the West, and that’s reason enough Putin would be thrilled to see him elected president.

I don't always agree with my own New Dem congressman, Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, but he stated the foreign policy case against Trump appropriately enough last night: "When the rights of expression, religion and association are under growing assault around the globe, when the world needs a leader who can offer 'blood, tears, toil and sweat,' Trump offers only bluster, tirade, swindle, and threat. With malice towards all, and charity for none, Trump would separate us from the world, and divide us here at home. In Trump’s world, NATO is a relic, Putin an ally, Tiananmen an example, and torture our instrument. This is not leadership; this is calamity. It is not speaking hard truths or shunning political correctness-- but, instead, failing to see America’s greatness, its essential goodness, its unending promise. Like an easy mark at one of his casinos, Trump would have us throw the dice with America’s future. We will not do it."

DuWayne Gregory, the candidate Blue America endorsed for the South Shore of Long Island congressional seat on-again/off-again Trump ally Peter King holds, reminded us this morning that "King said Trump was morally and intellectually unfit to be President, but he put politics before the best interests of the country. Now today, Donald Trump proves, yet again, why he is too unstable and unfit to be the President and Commander and Chief of our country. His coziness with the Russian government should be a concern for everyone, even his endorser Congressman King. Both Trump and King have shown why their judgment is sufficiently lacking to hold public office."

Tom Wakely is a military vet running for the Austin/SanAntonio congressional seat held by the anti-science Chair of the House Science Committee, the man who'se ideological extremes is responsible for bringing the Zika virus to America. Last night after the convention he e-mailed us about Trump's latest obvious display of disloyalty to America:

I just recently heard that a concerned constituent in my district reached out to Lamar Smith's office to ask about Trump's invitation for espionage. From what they were told, Smith's office declared that 'they don't get into political election issues.' Seems a bit of a stretch coming from the office of the man who sat in Trump's VIP box on the very night Trump accepted the GOP's nomination. I'm not sure what's more political than a 30-year incumbent congressman falling into the waiting arms of the new Trump-branded GOP.

We already know that Trump's campaign manager has deep ties to Putin's political allies. The idea that we'd be soft on Putin, or simply allow citizens of our nation to be attacked by his cronies is flat out disgusting. All of this because what, Democrats play for the other major political team? And they have the nerve to complain that President Obama has been divisive.

If the reports of Trump's ties to Russian investors are true, coupled with Manafort's political past-- there should be no further evidence for folks in this nation to realize Trump's threat to our country has reached its boiling point. There has been a lot to laugh about regarding Trump, but this particular matter should be damn near disqualifying. It's certainly horrifying. If you're a member of the Russian oligarchy, there's a better-than-good chance it was only because Vladimir Putin allowed it. This is beyond a 'political election issue.' Vladimir Putin and his cronies operate solely on the basis of accruing wealth. Trump's been branding that trait as part of his appeal.

And yet, my opponent endorsed him - and acts like he has no opponent this November. If my opponent stays silent on this matter then he, too, endorses a Russian hack of his own people. He certainly endorsed a hack of some sort in May when he threw his full support behind Donald J. Trump.

As I explained a few days ago, many Russian elites have long felt that the CIA turned Gorbachev and that he dismantled the Soviet Union at their behest. He lives in the U.S. these days. Putin has been financing right-wing parties in Europe and there's amply evidence-- although without Trump's tax returns it's hard to prove legally-- that Trump's bankrupt business is staying afloat because of Putin's cash infusions, to the tune of over half a billion dollars. Putin has pumped millions of dollars into Jean-Marie Le Pen's fascist-oriented National Front and now Le Pen's putrid and savage daughter Maine Le Pen is threatening to win the presidency. (Imagine, if you will, Ivanka or Barron Trump waiting in the wings some day as well.)

State Of The Races-- Wisconsin Senate Contest And Presidential Head-To-Heads

To be honest, Wisconsin voters have had feeling of buyer's remorse for some time and there really wasn't any smart money on far right extremist Ron Johnson ever being reelected. Real Clear Politics average of polls for the Wisconsin Senate seat have Russ Feingold leader with 5.7% with 13 polls going back a year. Feigned was ahead in every single one of them. The newest poll was released yesterday by Wisconsin Public Radio and it shows Feingold ahead 51-41%-- a pretty difficult 10 point climb for Johnson, who is currently sinking, not gaining. The poll checked approval numbers for President Obama, Governor Walker and for both senators, Johnson who's term is expiring and Tammy Baldwin who was elected in 2012. Obama's approval number is 53%. Tammy's is 47%. Walker's is at 43% but Johnson's is worst-- 42%. After 6 years as senator 10% of registered voters say they've never even heard of him.

Like I said, none of this is really a surprise. The NRSC knew going into this that Johnson was their weakest link for November-- perhaps tied with Illinois' Mark Kirk. Johnson's an unpopular extremist in a state that is usually pretty moderate, especially in presidential years-- and voters seem to have fond memories of Feingold. And it doesn't matter who's at the top of the ticket in this race. Voters feel they've tried Johnson out and he's not what they were looking for.

But another factor seems to be having an impact on the race: the hyper-partisan obstructionism Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley have orchestrated to greet President Obama's nomination of centrist Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Johnson supports their position of blocking the nomination by not even allowing hearings on a respected and much-admired circuit court chief justice.Now look at the responses to these two questions from the WPR poll:

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but no one can argue that Johnson throwing his lot in with the obstructionists is helping him with Wisconsin voters. A majority favors hearings and the more Feingold's campaign helps voters connect the obstructionism to Johnson, the worse it's going to be for him in November.

A tiny aside, here. The poll did head to head match-ups between the 4 remaining candidates. Just like in North Carolina and virtually every other state, Bernie beats the Republicans handily and Clinton... well, that whole lesser-of-two-evils case her campaign desperately sometimes works a little and sometimes doesn't. Bernie beats Trump 52-33% among registered Wisconsin voters. Hillary beats Trump too-- but it's much hairier-- Clinton 46%, Trump 34%. Worse is the match-up with Cruz. Bernie cleans his clock, 50-40%. Hillary is within the margin of error, 45-44%. Not good in a state the Democrats have to win to to come out ahead in November. Don't say I didn't warn you-- Hillary is too dangerous for Democrats who want to win the White House.

You can help Bernie at the thermometer on the right and Russ Feingold at the thermometer on the left. Which means more to you?