How Toxic Will Trump Be For The GOP In Tomorrow's Primaries?

Tomorrow is Tuesday... primary day in 4 important states: North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia and Ohio-- each of which was carried by Señor Trumpanzee. If you think the GOP primary in West Virginia is crackpotsville... well, you're right, but almost sane compared to what's going on in Indiana. Last week we looked at the mess the Indiana senate primary has turned into. The Republicans in the battle there are charging each other with things like "Drunken driving, self-dealing and false advertising," while all 3 candidates-- Congressman Todd Rokita, Congressman Luke Messer and former state Rep. Mike Braun-- are "doing their best to portray themselves as the second coming" of... Señor Trumpanzee. If it comes down to who is the most Trump-like-- and it well may-- Braun should have the edge.

Over the weekend Bill Barrow surveyed the Trumpist landscape in all for states for A.P. The nomination fights are pulling the party to the right, leaving some leaders worried their candidates will be out of a step with the broader electorate in November. "GOP candidates are jockeying to be seen as the most conservative, the most anti-Washington and the most loyal to the president. It’s evidence of the onetime outsider’s deepening imprint on the Republican Party he commandeered less than two years ago."

In Indiana, Republicans will pick from among three Senate candidates who have spent much of the race praising Trump and bashing each other. In West Virginia, a former federal convict and coal baron has taken aim at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) with racially charged accusations of corruption.

In Ohio, Republicans are certain to nominate someone more conservative than outgoing GOP Gov. John Kasich, a 2016 presidential candidate, moderate and frequent Trump critic. Even Kasich’s former running mate, Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor, has pledged to unwind some of Kasich’s centrist policies, including the expansion of the Medicaid government insurance program following Democrats’ 2010 health insurance overhaul.

With Trump’s job approval hanging around 40 percent and the GOP-run Congress less than half that, the abandonment of the middle has some Republicans raising alarms.

“The far left and the far right always think they are going to dominate these elections,” said John Weaver, a Trump critic and top strategist to Kasich, who has been become a near-pariah in the primary to succeed him.

Weaver's reasoning has one little problem. There is no far left among Democratic politicians. The battles in the Democratic Party are between right-wing Democrats like Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ) on the one hand and mainstream slightly left of center Democrats on the other side. There are 5 Democrats with 100% Progressive Punch ratings this year: Jamie Raskin (MD), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Barbara Lee (CA), Karen Bass (CA) and John Lewis (GA). None are extremists; none are remotely "far left."

On the other hand, putative Democrat Conor Lamb (Blue Dog-PA), who the GOP just spent over a million dollars smearing as a far right lunatic has a ZERO rating, making him far to the right of most Republicans in the House. And he's a DCCC role model! There are 22 Republicans with zero scores-- and all of them really are far right (or pretending to be): Karen Handel (GA), Bradley Byrne (AL), Jackie Walorski (IN), Pete Sessions (TX), Devin Nunes (CA), Brett Guthrie (KY), Ken Calvert (CA), Sam Johnson (TX), Mac Thornberry (TX), Joe Wilson (SC), Kay Granger (TX), Steve Scalise (LA), Gregg Harper (MS), Steve Womack (AR), Dennis Ross (FL), Rick Crawford (AR), Duncan Hunter (CA), Austin Scott (GA), Trey Gowdy (SC), Gus Bilirakis (FL), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ) and Lou Barletta (PA). And it isn't just their voting records; remember Joe Wilson? He's the one who screamed "You lie" while Obama was delivering the State of the Union. Can you imagine a Democrat doing something like that to Trump, even though every word out of his face is a lie? Lou Barletta is running for the U.S. as an open racist. And what can anyone say about Devin Nunes other than he's counting on Trump eventually pardoning him? OK, back to Barrow:

“You may think it’s wise in a primary to handcuff yourself to the president,” Weaver said. “But when the ship goes down, you may not be able to get the cuffs off.”

North Carolina Republicans will weigh in on the fate of Republican Rep. Robert Pittenger, facing a primary challenger who almost upset him two years ago. Pittenger features Trump prominently in his campaign. Challenger Mark Harris, a prominent Charlotte pastor, has tried to turn the table, saying Pittenger is a creature of Washington who refuses to help Trump “drain that swamp.”

Tough primaries certainly don’t have to be disastrous. They often gin up voter attention and engagement, and can signal strong turnout in the general election.

Dallas Woodhouse, who runs the North Carolina Republican Party, said candidates benefit because they must “make their arguments and voters become more aware of the election.”

Imagine if Pelosi, Lujan, Sena and Bresler ran the DCCC that way, instead of squelching primaries and doing all they can to crush progressives who run against their shit candidates from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. That hasn't been working out very well for crap DCCC recruits so far like Jay Hulings (TX-23), Alex Triantaphyllis (TX-07), Tim Gomes (NY-02), R.D Huffstetler (VA-05) or some of the others the DCCC fattened up on contributions only to see them fall by the wayside to grassroots candidates.

Few national Republicans look at West Virginia and see helpful enthusiasm.

The orange ape spoke up this morning

Former coal executive Don Blankenship has accused McConnell of creating jobs for “China people” and charges that the senator’s “China family” has given him millions of dollars. McConnell’s wife is Trump’s transportation secretary, Elaine Chao, who was born in Taiwan.

Indiana Senate candidates are trying to appeal to Trump voters by adopting the president’s harsh immigration rhetoric and penchant for personal insults. The candidates have even channeled Trump by assigning derisive nicknames to one another: “Lyin’” Todd Rokita, Luke “Missing” Messer and “Tax Hike” Mike Braun.

In several of the Tuesday primaries, Democrats are watching with delight, and having less trouble aligning behind nominees. The chief beneficiaries would be Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, both sitting on healthy campaign accounts after avoiding their own primary fights.

The leading Democrat for the North Carolina seat, Marine veteran Dan McCready, has raised almost $2 million, slightly more than Harris and Pittenger combined, in a district Trump won by about 12 percentage points. “He will absolutely make this competitive,” Harris said.

In the Ohio governor’s race, liberal former Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former state Attorney General Richard Cordray have managed to avoid open warfare. Cordray, who also led the federal consumer watchdog agency launched under President Barack Obama, is the favorite.

Republicans watched their state party, led by pro-Trump leadership that replaced Kasich allies after the 2016 elections, endorse state Attorney General Mike Dewine, while Taylor has effectively shunned an earlier endorsement from Kasich.

“If Ohio Republicans are divided into Trump Republicans and Kasich Republicans, the Trump Republicans have won,” said the state Democratic chairman, David Pepper. “That helps us.”

Gallup measures Trump with an 89 percent job approval rating among Republicans nationally, but 35 percent among independents and 42 percent overall. Historically, presidents below 50 percent watch their party suffer steep losses in midterm elections.

Democrats must flip about two dozen Republican-held seats to reclaim a House majority, and they must do it with Republican-run legislatures having drawn many districts to the GOP’s advantage. In North Carolina, Harris said the makeup of the district, which stretches from Republican areas of metro Charlotte east through small towns and rural counties, makes his pro-Trump, anti-establishment message a primary and November winner.

Senate Democrats are just two seats shy of a majority, but must defend 26 incumbents, 10 in states where Trump won, including Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia. Republicans are defending nine seats, just one in a state Trump lost.

One nice thing that could pay off in the future: something like eight Kentucky counties are in the West Virginia media markets and they're hearing all this "swamp captain Mitch" and "cocaine Mitch" stuff on their TVs and radios all day and night. It seems to be working for Blankenship at the last minute. Last night Alex Isenstadt reported that West Virginia's establishment Democrats are worrying that Blankenship's candidacy is experiencing a sudden last minute surge. Two weeks ago Blankenship was in third place but after a week of attacking McConnell and Jenkins, he's in first place and Jenkins is disappearing as a contender. People seem to like the anti-McConnell approach. Private polling show him back in first place and "many are convinced that a Blankenship win, coming just months after the disastrous Alabama Senate race, would destroy the party’s prospects of defeating Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin in November."

Trumpanzee Jr. tweeted a plea to "the people of West Virginia to make a wise decision and reject Blankenship. No more fumbles like Alabama. We need to win in November."

Particularly concerning to Republicans is Blankenship’s TV spending. Over the final six days of the race, the self-funding coal baron is set to spend over $640,000 on commercials, according to media buying totals-- more than Jenkins and Morrisey combined. Blankenship has spent over $2.5 million on TV ads in total, far more than his rivals.

What is also distressing, senior Republicans say, is that Jenkins and Morrisey spent nearly all of the campaign savaging each other. Further complicating matters is that a Democratic super PAC, Duty and Country, has invested $1.8 million targeting Jenkins in an effort to keep him from winning the GOP primary, convinced that he would pose a formidable challenge to Manchin.

The bloodbath may ultimately be to the benefit of Blankenship, who has faced far fewer incoming attacks.

Andy Seré, a Jenkins strategist, argued that Morrisey’s attacks against Jenkins “have helped Blankenship,” and that with his last-minute attacks against Blankenship, “Morrisey is scrambling to fix the mess he and his enablers made.”

“But West Virginians see through it,” Seré added. “We are confident the Schumer-Morrisey alliance will fail and Evan Jenkins will prevail."

Happiest man in West Virginia has got to be Joe Manchin. In fact, didn't some notoriously right-of-center anti-gay MSNBC hostess endorse him for president in the last few days? More good news for Manchin. Blankenship is threatening to run as an independent if he doesn't win the GOP primary tomorrow. Blankie: " have not ruled out anything. I’ve said that I cannot let him win because of the opioid connection and Planned Parenthood connection." Manchin should build a cathedral to thank God.

Polls Show Generic Democrats Beating Generic Republicans In 2018 BUT... Will The DCCC And DSCC Recruit Candidates Foul Enough To Kill Hopes For A Blue Midterm?

Gil Cisneros, an "ex"-Republican lottery winner-- the kind of utterly worthless candidate the DCCC comes up with when left to their own devises

Tom Wakely was the progressive Democratic opponent to Lamar Smith last cycle. Next year he's a candidate for governor of Texas. This week he observed on twitter that "here in Texas Bernie style Democrats not only are not supported they are actively opposed by the party establishment." Of course, that isn't only the case in Texas. Much of the Democratic establishment, like the Republican establishment, exists, and thrives, on corruption. Any kind of profound reform-- which is, at its core, exactly what Bernie is offering-- is an existential threat.

So it's not just in Texas that the Democratic establishment is screwing over progressives. It's been the policy of the DCCC at least since 2006 when Rahm Emanuel implemented procedures still in place to exclude progressives as congressional candidates. And just minutes after I saw Wakely's tweet I read an e-mail from a Democratic congressional candidate here in California. Let me see how much of this I can quote without giving away his identity.

Off the record, there seems to be a coalition of candidates in xxx for various races ...state and local... looking to break apart the DNC, DCCC machine and go more progressive. Knowing the traditional party won't support us, we're looking for ways to win with ground campaigns and getting our story out to other sympathetic parts of the country to raise money. The divide within the state party is vast and cuts right through us here in xxx.

We face heavy opposition from the right, as you can imagine, but also get abandoned by the democratic party establishment.  We're pretty much left to fend for ourselves... We know we are true underdogs, but we have little to lose and so much to gain so we are fighters!

I'm going to connect you with the campaign manager for xxx, candidate for state Senate, in another email... his campaign manager can tell you of the realities of running a Dem campaign in this area-- hate crimes, houses being burned and death threats are to be expected.

Yeah, so... it's not just in Texas that the establishment will do whatever it has to do to hold onto power. Just look at the garbage Schumer recruited to run for Senate seats in 2016 in seats that looked like good bets for Democrats. Tens of millions of dollars were spent of these sub-par candidates. This whole list has something in common-- worthless anti-progressive Schumer recruits who he shoved down Democrats' throats and who all lost:

• Ted Strickland (OH)- 37.1%
• Patty Judge (IA)- 35.7%
• Katie McGinty (PA)- 47.2%
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)- 41%
• Patrick Murphy (FL)- 44.3%
• Evan Bayh (IN)- 42.4%

As a Chuck Schumer special bonus, 5 out of these 6 horrible candidates of his underperformed Clinton in their own states and dragged down the whole Democratic ticket. And guess what Schumer is up to this year. That's right... he's been recruiting more garbage to run for the Senate. There are really only two states-- Arizona and Nevada-- where red to blue flips are reasonable to expect and Schumer has found the worst possible candidate in each, ultra-conservative monstrosities Kyrsten Sinema and Jacky Rosen, respectively in Arizona and Nevada. The GOP must thank it's lucky stars every day that Schumer calls the shots at the DSCC and Pelosi calls the shots at the DCCC.

All that said, a YouGov poll from last week seems to be predicting substantial Democratic gains in 2018, not because the Democrats are any good, but because a strong anti-Trump/anti-Ryan wave is building, a wave that may will be strong enough to sweep even worthless garbage candidates the DSCC and DCCC are busy recruiting. The poll found the largest Democratic lead all year among registered voters in generic D vs R congressional matchups-- an 8-point lead for the Democrats.

Independents, who went for Trump by 4 points last year have flipped and are now saying they will vote for Democratic candidates in 2018... by 6 points-- a hefty, albeit mindless, 10 point move in a blue direction.

There are other indications of problems for Republicans. Few people like Congress-- it has just a 10% approval rating, while the President’s approval rating in this week’s poll is 39%. Just 36% have a favorable assessment of Democrats in Congress. But even fewer rate Congressional Republicans favorably. 15% more people give Republicans in Congress an unfavorable rating than judge Congressional Democrats negatively.

Barely half of Republicans give their own party’s Congressional representatives a favorable rating, while three in four Democrats have a favorable assessment of the Democrats in Congress. Half of Republicans approve of Speaker Paul Ryan’s performance, but only a third approve of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

There are many progressives who don't trust MSNBC's establishment smearmeister Joy Reid. It's because she does things like this for corrupt establishment politicians like Schumer and Harry Reid. I can tell you one thing, when Joy Reid's face shows up on my screen, I instantly switch the channel. Any progressive candidate desperate enough to go on her show might as well just get booked onto Fox News.



OK, so in the time I've been writing this post, the congressional candidate in California-- referred to above-- offering to introduce me to the party activist willing to tell the story about Democratic establishment misdeeds, did the intro. And I spoke with the guy at great length, checked out his bona fides and he's agreed to get me a guest post over the weekend. Something to look forward to. I hope he includes the part about how a progressive's house was burned down. Oh, look... speaking of Fox News, even their viewers are starting to get a bit of a reality check on how Americans view Trumpanzee. I bet he hated seeing this up on his TV screens today!

The Trumpezoic Era

Sidd Bikkannavar

One of my friends is a senior VP at one of the major American investment firms. A couple of years ago her company took all the senior officers for a convention in China. They were instructed to leave their cell phones and computers at home and were all give clean electronics with no data. That seemed extreme to me. I recently spent a day in the Beijing airport. A friend of mine from one of the big Silicon Valley tech firms warned me to not turn on my phone unless I didn't mind all the data being compromised instantly. So I kept it powered down; never turned it on for a second. About a month later I got a bill for over $100 for calls from Beijing. I explained to my service provider that I never even turned the phone on in Beijing and after almost an hour of arguing with a couple of agents, they wiped the $100 off the bill. But they refused to discuss how the charges got there.

Who wants to live in a country like that? Have you heard about Sidd Bikkannavar? Although the name might give him a problem, Bikkannavar is entitled to run for president of the U.S. Unlike Ted Cruz, he was born in the U.S. He's an optics technology scientist working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. Last month he was in Chile racing solar-powered cars in Patagonia. But when he tried returning home, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents at Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport apparently didn't like his South Indian last name. They detained him and demanded he hand over his phone's access PIN. The phone is NASA property and included sensitive data so he was reluctant to turn it over. The agents informed him they could detain him until he complied with their request which he eventually did. They took his phone (and PIN) away and returned it after getting whatever they wanted from it.

As The Verge reported, Bikkannavar is enrolled in Global Entry-- a Customs and Border Patrol program that allows individuals who have undergone background checks to have expedited entry into the country and made a strong case that there was no other reason to detain and search him other than illegal ethnic profiling.

“I asked a question, ‘Why was I chosen?’ And he wouldn’t tell me,” he says.

The officer also presented Bikkannavar with a document titled “Inspection of Electronic Devices” and explained that CBP had authority to search his phone. Bikkannavar did not want to hand over the device, because it was given to him by JPL and is technically NASA property. He even showed the officer the JPL barcode on the back of phone. Nonetheless, CBP asked for the phone and the access PIN. “I was cautiously telling him I wasn’t allowed to give it out, because I didn’t want to seem like I was not cooperating,” says Bikkannavar. “I told him I’m not really allowed to give the passcode; I have to protect access. But he insisted they had the authority to search it.”

Courts have upheld customs agents' power to manually search devices at the border, but any searches made solely on the basis of race or national origin are still illegal. More importantly, travelers are not legally required to unlock their devices, although agents can detain them for significant periods of time if they do not. “In each incident that I’ve seen, the subjects have been shown a Blue Paper that says CBP has legal authority to search phones at the border, which gives them the impression that they’re obligated to unlock the phone, which isn’t true,” Hassan Shibly, chief executive director of CAIR Florida, told The Verge. “They’re not obligated to unlock the phone.”

Nevertheless, Bikkannavar was not allowed to leave until he gave CBP his PIN. The officer insisted that CBP had the authority to search the phone. The document given to Bikkannavar listed a series of consequences for failure to offer information that would allow CBP to copy the contents of the device. “I didn’t really want to explore all those consequences,” he says. “It mentioned detention and seizure.” Ultimately, he agreed to hand over the phone and PIN. The officer left with the device and didn’t return for another 30 minutes.

Eventually, the phone was returned to Bikkannavar, though he’s not sure what happened during the time it was in the officer’s possession. When it was returned he immediately turned it off because he knew he had to take it straight to the IT department at JPL. Once he arrived in Los Angeles, he went to NASA and told his superiors what had happened. Bikkannavar can’t comment on what may or may not have been on the phone, but he says the cybersecurity team at JPL was not happy about the breach. Bikkannavar had his phone on hand while he was traveling in case there was a problem at work that needed his attention, but NASA employees are obligated to protect work-related information, no matter how minuscule.

Yesterday Ron Wyden (D-OR), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to John Kelly, Trump's new Secretary of Homeland Security about the incidents forcing Americans to unlock their phones. "These reports are deeply troubling, particularly in light of your recent comments suggesting that (Customs and Border Protection) might begin demanding social media passwords from visitors to the United States. With those passwords, CBP may then be able to log in to accounts and access data that they would otherwise only be able to get from Internet companies with a warrant. Circumventing the normal protections for such private information is simply unacceptable... In addition to violating the privacy and civil liberties of travelers, these digital dragnet border search practices weaken our national and economic security. Indiscriminate digital searches distract CBP from its core mission and needlessly divert agency resources away from those who truly threaten our nation. Likewise, if businesses fear that their data can be seized when employees cross the border, they may reduce non-essential employee international travel, or deploy technical countermeasures, like 'burner' laptops and mobile devices, which some firms already use when employees visit nations like China." Wyden's letter makes it clear that he is about to introduce legislation that will ensure that the "4th Amendment is respected at the border."

The term "Trumpezoic Era" comes from Alan Grayson. It's his idea. It came in a note to his supporters yesterday, a note about how, specifically, he would have made a difference in the Senate had the corrupt and stupid DSCC-- he blames Reid; I blame Schumer-- not sabotaged his campaign on behalf of yappy blue chihuahua, Patrick Murphy, Wall Street's favorite candidate of 2016 (FL- $2,161,722). Grayson, who once told me to expect that all the phone calls between him and I are monitored, wrote that he has a favorite drinking game-- "not taking a drink every time Donald Trump makes a fool of himself. That would make me an alcoholic overnight. The game is noting each time I would have altered the outcome if I had been elected to the Senate last year. So far, in Month One of the Trumpezoic Era, I count three instances."

Number One (Jan. 6):

When the Presidential electoral votes are counted, there is an opportunity to object in writing, and demand a House vote on the objection. By statute (3 USC 15), the objection can be on any grounds. There is only one catch: the objection has to be signed by at least one Congressman and one Senator. (FWIW, this is the only time I know when this particular 1+1 can do anything in our government.) There was no shortage of gutsy Representatives on the day of the Trump electoral vote count: Reps. McGovern, Raskin, Jayapal, Lee, Jackson-Lee, Grijalva and Waters all objected. (Waters also objected in 2000, to George W. Bush’s coronation.) Waters declared, pointedly, "I wish to ask: Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?” The 48 Democratic Senators sat stone-silent.

If I had been in the Senate, I would have objected to the investiture of Donald Trump.  You bet your patootie I would have.

Number Two (Jan. 4):

Senators normally require sixty votes to clear their throats, blow their noses, etc., but there are a few exceptions. One of them is called “reconciliation,” The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 limited Senate debate on the annual budget bill to “only” twenty hours-- 20 very boring hours. A filibuster, in contrast, means unlimited Senate debate, terminable only by sixty Senate votes. Since the Congressional Budget Act limits Senate debate automatically, it prevents a filibuster for certain budget bills, known as reconciliation bills. Knowing this, right after the new Congress was sworn in on Jan. 3, the Senate GOP wasted no time and put a budget resolution to repeal Obamacare to a vote on Jan. 4. But on Jan. 4, the President was named “Obama,” and the Veep was named “Biden.” There were 52 GOP Senators on Jan. 4, but Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against the resolution. If a certain Senator Grayson had been there in lieu of a certain Senator Rubio, there would have been only 50 votes to begin the repeal of Obamacare, and the 50-50 tie would have been broken by Vice President Biden, sending the resolution to repeal Obamacare down in flames.

If I had been in the Senate, I would have voted to prevent the repeal of Obamacare, just as I did on 63 occasions in the House. You bet your patootie I would have.

Number Three (Feb. 7):

It irks me that Betsy DeVos testified that student loans increased by 980% during the past eight years, while Sen. Franken pegged the actual figure at 118%. Percentages-- isn’t that something that you learn by fifth grade? However, if gross inaccuracy doesn’t disqualify you to be President-- let us pray for the victims of Muslim terrorism in Sweden, amen!-- then why should it disqualify you from being Education Secretary? No, what really chaps my lips is the point that Sen. Sanders made about DeVos, which is that she can wear this t-shirt with pride:

“My Family Gave $200 Million to the GOP, and All I Got Was This Lousy Cabinet Post.”

DeVos paid good money for that cabinet position.

Which begs the question: America, oligarchy or plutocracy? We report, you decide. Because I remain uncomfortable with the concept that public office can be bought, I would have voted against Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. (I reserve judgment as to whether I would vote for her for Secretary of Religion, which probably is the gig she really wants.) And with Senator Grayson serving in lieu of Senator Rubio, Betsy DeVos would have lost. That would have taught her a lesson.

If I had been in the Senate, I would have defeated the nomination of Betsy DeVos. You bet your patootie I would have.

Oh, and while we are on the subject of nominees, I sure wouldn’t have opened the 115th Congress with those first few appeasement votes we saw on Trump nominees, until rank-and-file Democrats evinced their displeasure with that approach. I would have put the screws to every one of them.

Alas, I haven’t had that opportunity, because the corrupt Democratic Party leadership (first name, Harry) was enchanted, mesmerized, spellbound, bewitched and enthralled by the promise by my primary opponent’s father to provide $10 million for his vicious, vacuous campaign. (In the end, his father gave $500,000, not $10 million, and it sure was much-fun to watch my beclowned party cancel those TV buy reservations, week by week, waiting for Daddy’s money to show up.) I would say that the rest is history, but actually, the Trumpocalyptic history still unfolds, moment by moment, vote by vote, and drink by drink.

The Man Who Gave The House To The GOP Is Tasked With Basically Doing The Same For The Senate In 2018

I have to give credit to Schumer for firing the spectacularly failed DSCC chairman, his 2016 sock-puppet Jon Tester. I can't remember the DSCC ever doing worse in terms of money spent compared to contests lost. This should have been a cycle the Democrats won back the Senate and took at least 6 seats. Instead they won a measly two, New Hampshire and Illinois. These are the ones they lost and how much they spent (DSCC + Senate Majority PAC, not including allied groups):

• McGinty (PA)- $32,883,006
• Hassan (NH)- 29,048,374
• Ross (NC)- $16,142,247
• Bayh (IN) $13,723,677
• Strickland (OH)- $9,690,671
• Kander (MO)- $8,459,872
• Feingold (WI)- $4,668,343
• Murphy (FL)- $4,187,566

After inserting a disliked corporate shill, Patty Judge, into the Iowa race-- which might have been won by respected state Senator Rob Hogg had Schumer and Tester not interfered-- the DSCC immediately withdrew from Iowa leaving Grassley to clobber Judge. They spent a grand total of $577 on her. They also quickly withdrew from Arizona after recruiting conservative corporate shill Ann Kirkpatrick, having spent a total of $40,674. Having inserted conservative losers in Florida and Ohio, they stopped spending in those two states as well, leaving both of their hapless candidates to suffer ignominious defeats. Murphy only won 44.3% of the vote, considerably below Clinton's 47.8% and Strickland was the embarrassment of the cycle-- albeit completely predictable-- losing with just 36.9% of the vote, far under-performing Clinton's 43.5%. I can't say if Grayson would have beaten Rubio in Florida or Sittenfeld would have bested Portman in Ohio, but each would have done much better than the Schumercrat that was whisked through the primary. A Gravis poll recently showed that had Schumer not forced the tally flawed McGinty into the race, Joe Sestak would have won Pennsylvania.

Schumer was more at fault than Tester who was, basically, just a sad-sack order-taker. But he couldn't exactly hold himself accountable, so he just pushed Tester aside and announced Friday that the next DSCC head would be Maryland freshman Chris Van Hollen, best known for being the most dismally failed DCCC chairman in contemporary history. In the run-up to the 2010 congressional midterms, Van Hollen and his lieutenants told Democrats to play Republican-lite. And did they ever. A huge Democratic majority offered very little to ordinary voters and watered-down every piece of useful legislation progressives offered. These are the Democrats who Van Hollen and his DCCC enthusiastically encouraged to vote with the GOP... and who were abandoned by Democratic voters are got swamped in the midterms-- or sensed what was about to happen and retired first:

• Bobby Bright (AL)
• Marion Berry (AR)
• Vic Snyder (AR)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Harry Mitchell (AZ)
• John Salazar (CO)
• Betsy Markey (CO)
• Allen Boyd (FL)
• Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
• Ron Klein (FL)
• Jim Marshall (GA)
• Walter Minnick (ID)
• Melissa Bean (IL)
• Debbie Halvoson (IL)
• Bill Foster (IL)
• Baron Hill (IN)
• Dennis Moore (KS)
• Frank Kratovil (MD)
• Bart Stupak (MI)
• Travis Childers (MS)
• Gene Taylor (MS)
• Ike Skelton (MO)
• John Adler (NJ)
• Harry Teague (NM)
• Michael McMahon (NY)
• Scott Murphy (NY)
• Mike Acuri (NY)
• Dan Maffei (NY)
• Bob Etheridge (NC)
• Earl Pomeroy (ND)
• Steve Driehaus (OH)
• Charlie Wilson (OH)
• John Boccieri (OH)
• Zack Space (OH)
• Kathy Dahlkemper (PA)
• Patrick Murphy (PA)
• Chris Carney (PA)
• Paul Kanjorski (PA)
• John Spratt (SC)
• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
• Lincoln Davis (TN)
• Bart Gordon (TN)
• John Tanner (TN)
• Glenn Nye (VA)
• Tom Periello (VA)
• Rick Boucher (VA)
• Brain Baird (WA)
• Alan Mollohan (WV)- lost primary

In all, Van Hollen lost an unprecedented 63 House seats on that election day-- far more than those conservatives listed above. There's been a redistricting since then so it's hard to be precise about this but only 3 of those 47 districts Van Hollen lost are back in Democratic hands today. So when Schumer told the media that "Chris Van Hollen was our first choice for DSCC chairman because of his talents, his work ethic, and his experience," people has to stifle an impulse to laugh out loud. "He has the confidence of our caucus and will do a great job for our candidates running in 2018," Schumer continued while his caucus collectively shuddered. "The map is tough for Democrats, but I have no doubt that Senator-elect Van Hollen is up to the task." He's not-- and vulnerable Democrats like Claire McCaskill (MO), Joe Donnelly (IN), Tammy Baldwin (OH), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Bob Casey (PA), Bill Nelson (FL), Debbie Stabenow (MI) and Sherrod Brown (OH) probably realize that. One of the top Senate staffers who I asked if he thought Schumer was on psychedelic drugs when he made the announcement answered this way:

Van Hollen in 2010: "Yes, we lost 63 seats, but at least we didn’t lose 106."

Van Hollen in 2018: "Yes, we lost 10 seats, but at least we didn’t lose 106.  Oh, wait, we only had 48 to start with.  Make that 48."

Did Trump Have Any Coattails In Senate Races?

There was a lot of anger among Trump fans that so many of the GOP incumbents either opposed Trump directly-- the way Mark Kirk (R-IL) did-- or refused to overtly, publicly and enthusiastically back him-- think Pat Toomey waiting until 6pm on election day. This weekend, as we read the unlikely story, given Trump's well-known penchant for revenge, about how the transition team is considering defeated New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte for the Secretary of Defense job, we have to remember that shoe refused to endorse him. We his partisans in Belknap and Coos counties-- where he performed best, pissed off enough at Ayotte to cost her the election? The answer is no.

First of all Ayotte did better statewide than the unsuccessful Trump and just about the same vote as the successful Republican gubernatorial candidate, Chris Sununu.

• Sununu- 353,572 (49.0%)
• Ayotte- 353,525 (47.9%)
• Trump- 345,598 (47.3%)

However, in the two counties where Trump did best, he did outperform her, although very slightly-- maybe a Klavern's worth. In Belknap, where Trump took 19,315 votes (56.0%), Ayotte won 18,710 (53.8%). Same story in Coos County, where Trump won 7,951 votes (52.1%) and Ayotte got 7,537 votes (48.7%).

Illinois and Nevada, two states that Trump lost and where the GOP Senate candidates went down the drain with him, were also the two states were the Republican candidates were most explicit in saying that would not vote for Trump. In Illinois Trump did really badly-- 2,118,179 votes (39.4%). Mark Kirk didn't do well either-- but noticeably better than Trump-- 2,150,099 (40.2%). Trump had several pockets of strength though. His half dozen best-performing counties, Trump Country, were all tiny and rural:

• Wayne- 6,963 (84.3%
• Edwards- 2,777 (83.8%)
• Clay- 5,009 (79.8%)
• Pope- 1,678 (78.7%)
• Effingham- 13,613 (78.1%)
• Jasper- 3,973 (77.8%)

Trumpists in these far right bastions were significantly less enthusiastic about Kirk:

• Wayne- 5,612 (70.7%)
• Edwards- 2,321 (68.5%)
• Clay- 3,896 (64.0%)
• Pope- 1,279 (61.9%)
• Effingham- 12,497 (72.5%)
• Jasper- 3,310 (66.9%)

Had he not lost so many Trumpists would he have beaten Duckworth? Nope. In the bigger urban and suburban counties, he did far better than Trump, largely because he distanced himself from the unpopular fascist. In the biggest county in the state, Cook, Kirk won 512,164 votes (25.2%), much better than Trump's 440,213 (21.4%). It was pretty much the same in the next 5 biggest counties in the state, deep red McHenry County being the glaring exception.

• DuPage- Kirk: 190,201 (45.7%), Trump: 164,355 (39.8%)
• Lake- Kirk: 133,592 (45.2%), Trump: 108,608 (37.0%)
• Will- Kirk: 124,101 (42.8%), Trump: 129,726 (44.6%)
• Kane- Kirk: 87,153 (45.2%), Trump: 82.087 (42.4%)
• McHenry- Kirk: 57.923 (41.4%), Trump: 71,117 (52.6%)

Kirk's gamble to eschew Trump and his most rabid, racist fans paid off... just not enough. In Nevada the story was slightly different. Trump took 511,319 votes statewide (45.5%) and the anti-Trump (but not anti-Trump enough?) wishy-washy Heck took 494,427 votes (44.7%).

Trump won all the sparsely populated, rural counties and lost the two biggies, Clark (Vegas) and Washoe (Reno) to Clinton. Trump's two biggest counties were Eureka-- 723 (84.7%)-- Lincoln-- 1,671 (78.4%)-- and Esmeralda-- 329 (77.8%). Who cares when he lost Clark by double digits, 401,068 (52.4%) to 319,571 (41.8%). Catherine Cortez Masto didn't even win Washoe County-- just Clark. Compare Heck and Trump in the 2 biggest counties and in Trump's 3 best-performers, all tiny:

• Clark- Heck: 303,316 (40.4%), Trump: 319,571 (41.8%)
• Washoe- Heck: 97,226 (46.9%), Trump: 94,529 (45.2%)
• Eureka- Heck: 692 (81.5%), Trump: 723 (84.7%)
• Lincoln- Heck: 1,609 (75.9%), Trump: 1,671 (78.4%)
• Esmeralda- Heck: 312 (74.3%), Trump: 329 (77.8%)

Heck's win in Washoe, where's he's from, was significant but Trump voters seemed to have abandoned him consistently enough, not to make a difference in the outcome, but enough to make him question his ever-shifting strategy towards Trump.

Alaska had a unique situation,. The establishment incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, who was distinctly unenthusiastic about Trump, was more concerned with the Trumpist Libertarian candidate, far right-wing lunatic Joe Miller, than she was with a pathetically divided Democratic Party. Trump wasn't especially popular in a state where Romney beat Obama 136,848 (55%) to 102,138 (41%). Trump's victory over Clinton was 130,415 (52.9%) to 93,007 (37.7%). A less disliked Democrat would have come a lot closer to beating him and Bernie probably could have. The Senate race had the two Republicans with over 180,000 votes between them, around 50,000 more than Trump! Murkowski took 111,382 votes (44.3%) and Miller, the full-on Trumpist crackpot, took 74,245 (29.5%).

In Arizona, the antipathy between Trump and McCain was out in the open. McCain did better than Trump-- 1,085,285 (53.4%) to Trump's 1,017,166 (49.5%) In Colorado, the Republicans had nominated a fringe rightist Darryl Glenn it run against an unpopular Democratic incumbent, Michael Bennet. Bennet won but with a narrower margin than expected: 1,242,335 (49.1%) to 1,148,008 (45.4%), beating Trump's 1,136,354 (44.4%) statewide. Bennet also beat Clinton.

Down the road in Utah, Trump was the unloved victor with far fewer votes than the anti-Trump Governor or Senator. Trump only won 397,005 votes (46.6%). Trump-hater Senator Mike Lee took 571,781 votes (68.1%) and Trump-hater Gary Herbert won 564,563 votes (66.9%). For all the Sturm und Drang, Trump was a non-factor in Utah. Clinton beat him in Salt Lake County, 126,702 (44.9%) to 91,373 (32.4%). Again, his best-performing counties were all rural and numerically inconsequential. Compare his performance to Mike Lee's in Trump's 3 best counties:

• Piute- Trump: 537 (87.0%), Lee: 549 (91.2%)
• Emery- Trump: 3,402 (79.8%), Lee: 3.630 (86.0%)
• Duchesne- Trump: 5,505 (79.4%), Lee: 6,044 (87.8%)

I'll note in passing that the most outspoken Trump Senate candidate anywhere former KKK Grand Dragon or Wizard, David Duke, came in 7th in Louisiana, with just 58,581 votes. Trump, who won the state with 1,178,004 votes (58.1%), didn't do him much good. There were no bright spots for Duke anywhere in the state. Trump's half dozen best-performing parishes were La Salle (88.8%), Cameron (88.2%), Livingston (84.6%), Grant (84.0%), West Carroll (83.4%) Caldwell (81.5%) and the only ones of them where Duke climbed above his miserable statewide average were La Salle (8.1%) and Caldwell (7.9%). Duke's best-performing parish, the racist hellhole Avoyelles (median household income-- $23,851) was kind of average for Trump-- 11,163 votes (67.3%)-- while Duke came in 5th with 1,354 (8.9%). Trump wasn't much of a factor in the state.

But he sure was in Florida. Rubio-- who had, in Patrick Murphy, the weakest Democratic opponent of any major state-- very publicly held his nose and endorsed Trump, who he promised to fight when he steps out of line. Rubio out-performed Trump statewide-- 4,822,182 (52.0%) to 4,605,515 (49.1%). His native Miami-Dade was an important consideration for Rubio, of course. Trump fans in the really backwards little rural districts where Trump had his biggest wins were relatively unethusiastic about Rubio, but the voters in the big counties where are the voters are were more interested in electing Rubio than Trump. First the half dozen most Florida counties with the most voters:

•Miami-Dade- Trump: 333,666 (34.1%), Rubio: 419,623 (43.3%)
• Broward- Trump: 258,521 (31.4%), Rubio: 275,930 (34.1%)
• Palm Beach- Trump: 270,762 (41.2%), Rubio: 286,027 (44.2%)
• Hillsborough- Trump: 265,928 (44.7%), Rubio: 282,749 (48.1%)
• Orange- Trump: 195,091 (35.7%), Rubio: 224,710 (41.7%)
• Pinellas- Trump: 238,746 (48.6%), Rubio: 236,170 (48.8%)

In these 6 most crucial counties in the state, Rubio won 162,525 more votes than Trump. He beat Trump in every one of them except Pinellas and Rubio actually had a bigger portion of the vote in his contest there than Trump did. In the 6 most blue counties Rubio netted 1,725,239 votes, over 162,000 more than Trump's 1,562,714. It's the main reason Rubio did so much better than Trump statewide despite some Trump fanatics refusing to vote for Rubio. And these are the 6 most Trumpoid counties:

• Holmes- Trump: 7,476 (87.9%), Rubio: 7,032 (83.7%)
• Lafayette- Trump: 2,795 (82.8%), Rubio: 2,559 (76.5%)
• Baker- Trump: 10,294 (81.5%), Rubio: 9,901 (79.5%)
• Dixie- Trump: 5,822 (80.8%), Rubio: 5,040 (72.2%)
• Union- Trump: 4,567 (80.2%), Rubio: 4,312 (77.4%)
• Gilchrist- Trump: 6,740 (80.1%), Rubio: 6,301 (75.7%)

So in the 6 most redneck, backward counties in the state, 2,549 Trump fanatics skipped voting for Rubio. It sure didn't make any difference as Rubio crushed Murphy by over 700,000 votes, a lot more convincingly than Trump bested Clinton.

Ohio and Pennsylvania are two states were the GOP incumbents did't endorse Trump. Rob Portman (OH) said he wouldn't vote for him and Toomey played coy. Trump fans had no discernible impact. In fact, in Ohio, Portman out-polled Trump 3,048,467 to 2,771,984-- a 276,483 margin! In Pennsylvania, Toomey had a slightly larger portion of the vote in his race (48.9%) than Trump did in his (48.8%), although statewide Trump had 2,912,941 votes to Toomey's 2,893,833-- a minute margin of 19,108 Trump voters who didn't cast ballots for Toomey.

In Missouri, North Carolina and Wisconsin, the Republican incumbents all backed Trump. With the possible exception of Blunt (MO), he didn't do any of them much good though. Trump kicked ass in Missouri-- 1,585,753 votes (57.1%) while Blunt scraped by with just 1,370,240 votes (49.4%), so Trump might have been helpful. But in North Carolina, Burr got more votes than Trump-- 2,371,192 (51.1%) to 2,339,603 (50.5%). And it was the same thing in Wisconsin, where Ron Johnson got 1,479,262 votes (50.2%) and Trump barely won with 1,409,467 votes (47.9%).

As for Republican incumbents who lost their seats in the House, in Florida John Mica (FL) had endorsed Trump, while David Jolly and Carlos Curbelo had opposed him. Frank Guinta was a Trump supporter and he was defeated badly. Robert Dold (IL) and Cresent Hardy (NV) had opposed Trump, while Scott Garrett (NJ) played coy. Several Republican incumbents in tight races who either opposed Trump or refused to endorse him won, including Barbara Comstock (VA), William Hurd (TX), John Katko (NY), Erik Paulsen (MN), Bruce Poliquin (ME), David Blum (IA), Mike Bost (IL), Mike Coffman (CO), Scott Tipton (CO), Steve Knight (CA) and Dave Valadao (CA). Darrell Issa (CA), a big Trump supporter, is in a race that is still too close to call. Backing or opposing Trump doesn't seem to have been decisive in any races.

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

Results I

This morning at 10:30 I walked down the hill to my polling station and there was a line, first I ever saw there, but that was more because of an illiterate poll worker who was non-functional than because of voter enthusiasm per se. The whole process from arming my home alarm to disarming it took 19 minutes-- and that was a tough walk back up in the hill in the hot sun. It's 85 degrees and sunny, different from how I remember November voting days in NY and San Francisco!

Meanwhile Trump was working to disenfranchise American citizens of Hispanic origin in Nevada, while the Republican Party was up to it's old tricks of suppressing the black vote in North Carolina "When the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that North Carolina had intentionally passed a law containing provisions making it harder for Black people to vote, the court probably thought it was sending the state a clear message: Stop discriminating. North Carolina Republicans, however, don’t seem to be getting the point... Since Republicans have been unable to convince meaningful numbers of Black people to vote for them, they resort to underhanded tactics that, as the Fourth Circuit noted, target Black voters with 'almost surgical precision.'" The state GOP's executive director, Dallas Woodhouse, ordered Republicans on county elections boards to cut early voting hours and keep polling sites away from college campuses.

In Nevada, Trump lawyers were nearly laughed out of court for whining to a judge the early voting sites in Hispanic neighborhoods were allowed to stay open too late. Although Trump calls it "rigged," it has been generally accepted in every single state that when someone is on line when the polls close they get to vote no matter how long it takes. People who are pro-democracy encourage voters. Authoritarians discourage voters and try to hold down turnout and participation. The Nevada judge threw the suite out. Trump's attorney general pick, Rudy Giuliani, was screaming on MSNBC "If the polls close at 9pm, close 'em at 9pm!" something that never happened in New York City when he was mayor.

Artie Blanco, Director for a group called For Nevada’s Future didn't take well to Trump's clownish lawsuit either. Moments after it was thrown out, he told the media that "For the past three hours, the Trump campaign has wasted the time and tax dollars of the people of Nevada. Their frivolous lawsuit, thrown out just moments ago, was aimed towards doing one thing, and one thing only, disenfranchising voters. Meanwhile, dozens of organizations are helping to remind Nevada’s voters that today is election day and that all Nevada’s citizens should come to the polls in order to have their voices heard as they have already done in record numbers during early vote."

Meanwhile, over at Fox, Charles Krauthammer was on with Bill Hemmer warning about a Republican civil war. He warned that Trump (and his gang) will try to turn the GOP into a populist party-- remember, right-wing populism is usually a precursor to outright fascism-- and that "the country will not have a conservative party." (I guess he hasn't been taking a serious look at Hillary and the people around her, although he did say he thinks she will try to make a Grand Bargain-- cutting entitlements and raising taxes-- as soon as she takes office.)



Pelosi and Ben Ray Lujan, her lame DCCC chair, came out before there were any results to whine that it wasn't the DCCC's fault that they wouldn't win back the House today because it is Jim Comey's fault. Something that's true, on the other hand, was that anyone who predicted that the unfavorables for both Trump and Clinton would hold down turnout. Turnout has been very heavy though-- everywhere.

The first states to close-- at 6pm (which seems odd in 2016)-- were most of Indiana and most of Kentucky. By 7pm AP called Kentucky and Indiana for Trump and Vermont for Clinton. No surprises there. AP also called the Senate races in Kentucky and South Carolina for the GOP and Vermont for the Dems. No surprises there either. And then came West Virginia, also for Trump. Right off the bat, though, Hillary pulled ahead in Florida, while Murphy sunk down below Rubio. We'll update every now and then tonight. But my Twitter page is probably better.

Election Notes

The Clintons help Trump celebrate his wedding to Melania. Will they laugh like this again? Of course, but not where you can see them, for a while at least.

by Gaius Publius

A couple of election notes from Corey Robin, plus a bonus note from me:

Blaming the Left

This is something we all anticipate:

1.
As the polls tighten, there’s a lot of left-blaming and left-fretting among Clinton supporters. That fits with a long-standing psycho-political syndrome among liberals of attacking the left—a syndrome in which the left often plays its own not so healthy part.

But there’s little basis for that syndrome in reality, at least in this election. Not that this particular reality has much impact on the self-styled reality-based community. But it’s important to register that reality nonetheless[.]

Robin then quotes Matt Grossman (via the Vox link above):

“The problems Hillary Clinton is having do not have to do with the left,” says Matt Grossmann, a political scientist at Michigan State, in an interview…. ”There is not much of any evidence of a drop-off in support for her from the left-wing of the ideological spectrum.”….Like Jill Stein or not, the drag she has been on Clinton basically amounts to a rounding error.

Will that stop them? Unlikely. Old dogs, old tricks and all.

"It's your fault if she loses. You. Personally."

 This next one is a variant of the first, but a little nastier:

2.
A story Jacob Levy reported on Facebook today leaves me with this embittered thought.

Liberals in the media, academia, political circles, and on social media who support Clinton act as if your one vote — out of the more than 100 million cast — determines the fate of the republic. If you vote for Stein (whether in a safe state or not), you are personally responsible for Trump’s inauguration.

These voices are often the very same people who, when challenged about Clinton’s voting record in the Senate or Obama’s policies, will say: Clinton was only one voice in a Senate, out of…a hundred voices. Obama was one lonely man arrayed against…three veto points.

That kind of reprimand ("it's your fault if she loses") sounds way too close to "You're insufficiently loyal, soldier," but maybe that's just me.

Robin continues to ponder the discrepancy between society's lack of forgiveness for us "littles" and its automatic forgiveness of the bigs:

Somewhere in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith has a passage about how we identify with the trials and travails of a king, giving him all of our sympathy and understanding, yet are so repelled by the tribulations of the lowly that we can scarce understand what they’re going through.

The difficulties and challenges of the most elite sectors of the political class are acutely felt by liberal journalists and commentators. And the calculations and concerns of the lowly citizen? Fuhgettaboutit.

Those two paragraphs remind me of the horror people always feel when they consider the French Revolution in its bloody early days ... without once seeing the centuries of misery, blood and death, by thousands upon thousands of humans, generation after generation, in Paris and in France, endured by the class of people who eventually rose up and fought back against it.

People, watching Marie Antoinette beheaded, call the Revolution a disgrace without once considering the nameless many who lived lives worse than hers, and died every day as a result — the "unhonored dead" who "gave to misery" all they had, and died not forgotten, but never even known.

Republicans and the Latin@ Vote

Robin spends much of the piece pondering the Latin@vote. One of his points is this:

4.
...I’ve been hearing this line of bullshit for years: once the Republicans start appealing to Latin@s, all will be well. People forget the ballyhoo around the fact that George W. Bush could say hello in Spanish. That was going to change everything forever....

There are two reasons Latin@s haven’t become a reliable part of the Republican coalition.

The first, of course, is the racism and revanchism of a considerable part of the GOP base. Just look how they took to Bush’s compassionate conservatism. ...

The second reason, though, is this: what GOP fantasists imagine creating is a multicultural, identity-friendly party of capital. The problem is we already have such a party. Who needs two?

That last paragraph (did you catch what he said?) sets the next part up nicely.

"Regimes tend to collapse of their own weight"

A much more general point, even more general than Robin himself makes of it:

7.
I once asked Steve Skowronek—who’s probably one of the four or five most fertile minds of the last quarter-century’s political science—what kind of role opposition parties play in toppling partisan/presidential regimes. What role did the 1932 Democrats play in overthrowing the Gilded Age regime? What role did the 1980 Republicans playing in overthrowing the New Deal regime?

Not much, he said, rather bleakly.

Regimes tend to collapse of their own weight, driven to destruction by the long-term consequences of the actions of their own elites and activists. While they ultimately need an opposition to topple them, the only reason the opposition can do that is that these regimes are already tipping over on their own [emphasis mine].

There's a lot to consider here. I think Robin errs in applying this to Republicans only instead of to the whole regime. After all, we made the same point recently, echoing Matt Taibbi. Here's Taibbi's version of this idea (emphasis mine):

The first symptom of a degraded aristocracy is a lack of capable candidates for the throne. After years of indulgence, ruling families become frail, inbred and isolated, with no one but mystics, impotents and children to put forward as kings. Think of Nikolai Romanov reading fortunes as his troops starved at the front. Weak princes lead to popular uprisings

And again, this point doesn't just apply to the Republican and their clown car of "impotents and children." This year we chose between of the two most unpopular candidates in modern history for president.

Bonus: How Early Will the Press Call the Presidential Race Over?

Near the end of the Democratic primary, in a apparent attempt to finish off the Sanders campaign, the AP called the contest over even before the California primary was held — before, in other words, all pledged delegates were decided. How early will the press call this contest decided?

• 1. After Clinton wins either Florida, North Carolina or Ohio, all Eastern time zone states, leaving Trump no path to victory?

• 2. Or after the polls close in Nevada, a Western time zone state, so as not to mess with what should be a heavy Democratic turnout and a possible tipping-point win in the race to control the Senate?

I know what Harry Reid would choose, but to wait three hours to be the first to name the new president ... that's a heavy ask. Torn between two lovers, what will the media do?

Be sure to read the rest of Corey Robin's piece, especially points 9 and 10 about what the strong Latin@ vote means for the rest of us going forward, and how, via the Culinary Workers Union in a right to work state, they've gotten where they are.

GP