Katie Hill, Bye-Bye

PVIs are backward looking and are rarely up to date. Take CA-25, the district represented by Katie Hill, Officially the PVI is "even" but the Santa Clarita Valley-Antelope Valley-Simi Valley district is way bluer than that would indicate. Obama won it narrowly against McCain and then lost it narrowly against Romney. Hillary beat Trump convincingly-- 50.3% to 43.6%. Blue America has been working to flip this district for well over a decade. We started when powerful GOP crook-- now lobbyist-- Buck McKeon was congressman there. He had to go but the district was much redder then, R+7 in 2006. It was a mammoth district-- biggest in California-- that did not include Simi Valley but instead crawled up the California border with Nevada, nearly as far north as Sacramento.

We jumped in to support Roberto Rodriguez, a recent Harvard graduate who hailed from a working class family in Barstow (no longer part of the district). At the time, McKeon was chair of the Education and Workforce Committee and under his stewardship-- and while he raked in over a quarter million dollars from student loan vendors, more than anyone else in Congress-- federal student loan programs were cut by $12.7 billion (the worst cuts in history) and student loan rates went up by 2.4%. Pure sleaze... but not the kind you go to prison for. Getting rid of McKeon would be up to the voters-- and the young and under-funded Rodriguez, who was running a very grassroots campaign concentrating on registering the district's Latino non-voters. McKeon spent $1,370,664 and Rodriguez spent $200,516. The only outside spending in the race was from Blue America ($5,000) and the National Education Association ($3,412) in favor of Rodriquez. The DCCC ignored the race entirely as if CA-25 didn't exist. McKeon beat Rodriguez 61-35%. The district was slowly, demographically, getting bluer but in 2008 and 2010, a vanity candidate went up against McKeon-- whose 61% backing didn't budge. In 2012 it was time to get serious about the district again.

Lee Rogers ran a strong, animated campaign, forcing McKeon to spend $1,769,400 (Rogers spent $360,091). He brought McKeon's win number down to 55% and did significantly better than any Democrat ever had in the district. The DCCC didn't care and studiously ignored the race. Blue America was the only group that spent in the district-- $39,810. McKeon heard the bell tolling and decided to retire. A glitch in the ballot left 2014 with two Republicans, mainstream conservative Tony Strickland and far right neo-Nazi Steve Knight. Though outspent $2,057,642 to $410,835, the neo-Nazi won. The district's Republicans are pretty extreme.

In 2016, the Democratic candidate was a wealthy carpetbagger, a garden variety Democrat-- Bryan Cafario with nothing to recommend him at all except that he wasn't a Republican. He managed to spend the same $1.6 million as Knight but it still came down to 54.2% (Republican) to 45.8% (Democrat). This time though, the DCCC was satisfied that Caforio was their kind of nothing-candidate who wouldn't make waves and they put $3,164,363 into the race, while Pelosi's House Majority PAC spent $242,487.

Now CA-25 was on the national radar. Katie Hill (now 32 years old) jumped into the race and first beat Caforio, massively outraised the hapless neo-Nazi, $7,156,033 to $829,932 and beat him 133,209 (54.4%) to 111,813 (45.6%), despite Paul Ryan's Congressional Leadership Fund spending $8,022,525 on Knight's behalf. (The DCCC and Pelosi's super PAC spent about $3.5 million combined, but Independence USA came in with over $5 million to combat Ryan's $8 million). In the end 61 outside groups spent independently on Hill's race! The Democrats had a slight registration advantage over the GOP and independents were eager to show their disdain for Trump. So Hill won.

Blue America was the first group to endorse her, an endorsement we quickly rescinded. A mutual friend introduced me to her over dinner a month or so before she began her campaign. I loved her energy and wanted to hear something that wasn't really there-- namely that she is a progressive. She didn't have to try too hard to convince me. But once the campaign got started in earnest I slowly began realizing that she duped me (and that I had been eager to be duped). The final straw was when she vowed to me that she would not become a New Dem and then turned around and joined the New Dems. That was blatant dishonesty-- a bad trait in any member of Congress. We quietly withdraw our endorsement.

In Congress, Katie was elected one of the co-presidents of the freshman class and she demonstrated a lot of energy and was seen as a comer. Pelosi sensed she was a leader and started inviting her to caucus leadership meetings. A New Dem, she quickly started running up a crappy voting record. ProgressivePunch has her rated as an "F" and her crucial vote score is 73.33, in the neighborhood of the other non-courageous California freshmen nervous about losing their jobs. Mike Levin's district is slightly redder (R+1) but his voting record is considerably better-- "B" with a 84.44 crucial vote score. Still, Katie is voting somewhat better than fellow New Dem freshmen Gil Cisernos (71.11), Harley Rouda (68.89) and Josh Harder (63.64).

A couple of weeks ago I read the Red State post about the scandal and realized she was a goner. It isn't something I ever wrote about and even refused to discuss it on David Feldman's radio show when he kept asking me about it. There was no need for me to help push her off the cliff she was heading right for. I did begin feeling out potential candidates for the seat though-- something I'm still working on.

Since Hill's resignation announcement (above) late Sunday, Washington Post reporters Meagan Flynn and Michelle Ye He Lee, in separate articles, presented her story-- or the seamy side of it-- without any political context. Sunday night Lee broke the story for Post readers. "Last week, the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into allegations that Hill was romantically involved with her legislative director, Graham Kelly, a relationship that would violate House ethics rules... Her departure came swiftly after allegations surfaced about a week ago in an article on the conservative website RedState.org. The article alleged that Hill and her husband were in a consensual three-person relationship with a woman on her campaign team. The article included text messages it said were between Hill and the woman as well as intimate photos of them together. Hill is openly bisexual. The article also alleged that Hill was involved romantically with Kelly. Under House ethics rules adopted last year in response to high-profile sexual harassment claims involving members of Congress, it is against the official code of conduct for members to 'engage in a sexual relationship with any employee' who works for the member."

Presumably it was Pelosi who made the call that Hill had to resign (rather than retire and just not run for reelection), a strategy that will make it easier for a Democrat to hold the seat. Pelosi announced that Hill "acknowledged errors in judgment that made her continued service as a Member untenable. We must ensure a climate of integrity and dignity in the Congress, and in all workplaces."




Hill's claim that she did not have a romantic relationship with Kelly-- the only thing that would have broken any House rules-- is sketchy. She said "Allegations that I have been involved in a relationship with Mr. Kelly are absolutely false. I am saddened that the deeply personal matter of my divorce has been brought into public view and the vindictive claims of my ex have now involved the lives and reputations of unrelated parties." Since I know from personal experience that she's a liar, I wouldn't believe the denial for two seconds. Lee added that "In her statement Sunday, she said she is pursuing legal options against those who released private photos, saying that 'having private photos of personal moments weaponized against me has been an appalling invasion of my privacy.' ... Hill has accused Republican operatives and her husband of coordinating a 'smear campaign' amid the couple’s pending divorce."

Monday morning, Meagan Flynn built on Lee's story. "For the first time," she wrote, "a House ethics rule that forbids sexual relationships with subordinates, passed in the wake of the #MeToo movement, has forced a lawmaker out of Congress. But to many observers, rather than drive home a warning about the consequences of sexual misconduct, Rep. Katie Hill’s resignation pointed to the disturbing power of 'revenge porn.' The California Democrat’s announcement Sunday that she would resign comes after the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into allegations that she had a romantic relationship with her legislative director, which would violate House ethics rules, and which Hill denied. Hill was also accused of having a three-person sexual relationship with a female campaign staffer and her now-estranged husband, which she admitted was improper. But the allegations only came to light after a conservative news site and British tabloid published nude images of Hill without her consent-- circumstances that have led many critics to note that Hill is both accused of sexual impropriety and is a victim of sexual exploitation."

Hill herself has acknowledged both aspects of her case, previously saying she knew “even a consensual relationship with a subordinate is inappropriate,” while vowing Sunday to mount a legal fight regarding the leak of intimate photos. She has accused her “abusive husband,” with whom she is undergoing a contentious divorce, of engaging in a “smear campaign built around cyber exploitation,” saying he enlisted “hateful political operatives” for help. The nude photos were published by the conservative site RedState.org and the Daily Mail.

“Having private photos of personal moments weaponized against me has been an appalling invasion of my privacy,” she said Sunday. “It’s also illegal, and we are currently pursuing all of our available legal options.”

But fewer lawmakers have outwardly addressed the problem of revenge porn, or nonconsensual pornography. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was a notable exception. Last week, Gaetz called the House ethics investigation “absurd,” questioning, “Who among us would look perfect if every ex leaked every photo/text?” He suggested the real reason Hill was being investigated “is because she is different.” Hill is also one of the first openly bisexual members of Congress.

Jill Filipovic, an attorney who authored the 2017 book The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness, pointed out that the dominant focus in Hill’s case appeared to be on the alleged affairs rather than on the revenge porn, which she argued could deter other women from aspiring to public office.

“It’s important to have consistent standards and say that sexual relationships with underlings are not appropriate, whether the boss is male or female,” she wrote in a Medium essay last week. “But if we care about gender equality and the ability for women to fully participate in the public sphere, the sexualized attacks against Hill are the most pressing matter.”

Other critics noted that Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) was accused by federal prosecutors in June of using taxpayer money to fund extramarital affairs with congressional staffers and lobbyists. The House Ethics Committee launched an investigation into Hunter’s conduct in September 2018, after he was originally indicted on charges of wire fraud and misuse of campaign funds. But despite pressure to resign from some lawmakers, Hunter has remained in Congress. Hunter has denied wrongdoing, and as The Post reported previously, the ethics panel has deferred taking action as federal prosecutors conclude their own probe.

The House rule that prompted the ethics panel to launch an investigation into Hill’s alleged relationship with congressional staffer Graham Kelly was passed in February 2018, during the peak of the #MeToo movement fallout. For the first time in Congress, the House resolution addressed the improper power dynamics of consensual relationships between members of Congress and their employees by banning any such relationship, while further protecting accusers who come forward with sexual harassment claims.

At the time the law passed, nine members of Congress had recently resigned or announced their looming departure amid allegations of sexual misconduct or related impropriety-- including one case that also involved leaked nude photos.

Former Texas congressman Joe Barton announced he would not seek reelection in 2018 after a nude photo of him circulated on Twitter and across the Internet, leading to revelations that the Republican, who was then married but separated from his wife, was having affairs with multiple women. In a November 2017 statement, Barton apologized for not using “better judgment,” saying he let down his constituents while acknowledging consensual sexual relationships he had had with other women.

A recording of a phone call Barton had with one woman, obtained by the Washington Post, revealed him telling the woman not to disseminate the explicit photos or else he would report her to the Capitol Police. Some argued Barton was a victim of revenge porn, while others questioned whether the nude photo he had sent was unsolicited.

But one notable difference between the Barton case and Hill’s is the fact that right-wing publications chose to release the photos, especially since they depicted “a politician of the opposing party,” Quinta Jurecic, managing editor of Lawfare, a legal blog, wrote in an op-ed.

“This is an ugly line to have crossed,” she wrote, adding: “The United States has not historically had a culture in which political media outlets publish nude photographs of opposition politicians for sport. It’s also a disappointing irony that this is taking place in a period in which legislatures are increasingly recognizing the harm of nonconsensual pornography.”

According to the Cyber Civil Rights Institute, 46 states and the District of Columbia have revenge porn laws-- and California, Hill’s home state, is among them. Reps. Jackie Speier (D-CA) and John Katko (R-NY) also reintroduced bipartisan legislation in May that would federally criminalize sharing sexually explicit images of someone without that person’s consent. Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-CA), a Democratic presidential candidate, has introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

Mary Anne Franks, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law who assisted in drafting the first law against nonconsensual pornography, urged the passage of the bill, known as the SHIELD Act, and spoke out in support of Hill on Twitter.

“One of the many terrible effects of nonconsensual pornography is how it can be used to drive women out of politics,” she wrote. “As we at [Cyber Civil Rights Institute] have been emphasizing for years, ‘revenge porn’ very often serves as a tool of abusive partners and a means to silence women.”

Names being bandied about on the Democratic side are Secretary of State Alex Padilla (who represented the 20th Senate district east of CA-25), Assemblywoman Christie Smith (who made it official already! and appears to be the DCCC fave), Bryan Caforio and Lee Rogers (the most progressive name out there). On the Republican side there are over a dozen either in or talking about it-- from Russia-Gate jailbird George Papadopoulous to ex-L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, probably the strongest potential GOP candidate. Lancaster City Councillor Angela Underwood-Jacobs has already announced, as has Mike Garcia, who the NRCC was supporting when he was viewed as a sacrificial lamb. Now they will dump him as fast as they can find someone more electable. Steve Knight has told friends he's going to probably run.

Winning One Of The Last Republican Held Seats In Los Angeles-- A Two-Part Guest Post By Lee Rogers

Anyone who has followed this blog for the past half dozen years knows Dr. Lee Rogers, primarily because he ran for Congress in CA-25 twice. The heart of the district is Santa Clarita but spreads south to Porter Ranch, west into Simi Valley, north as far as Gorman and east to Palmdale and up to Lancaster in the Antelope Valley. Lee challenged powerful (and corrupt) Republican Buck McKeon in 2012 and 2014, In 2012 he scared McKeon with a much closer race than he was used to, 129,593 (54.8%) to 106,982 (45.2%). McKeon decided to retire. In 2014, Lee was one of the first victims of the new jungle primary, when two Republicans prevailed in the first round and no Democrat made it to the general election. Today he is a prominent, internationally-known speaker and author on health policy. This week he endorsed Katie Hill for the CA-25 election.

Democrats' Chance to Flip CA-25 Rests with Katie Hill, Part I
by Dr. Lee Rogers

The outlook to flip California’s 25th District has never looked better. But that outlook is dimming with the prospect of a Bryan Caforio win over Katie Hill in California’s top two primary. Caforio lost to incumbent Republican Steve Knight in 2016. Caforio, who is attempting to run as a progressive, is dogged by his work as a lawyer representing big corporations, millionaires, and an oil company against citizens claiming seeping petroleum polluted their land.

Katie Hill, who is from the district and work includes being the executive director of the nonprofit PATH (People Assisting The Homeless), has worked to pass measures in LA area to reduce homelessness.

“In the Business of Helping People”



A political-newcomer, Hill has even out-raised Caforio $1.1M to $1M for the primary election cycle. Even more astonishing is what trusted political analysts are saying about Hill and CA-25.

The Cook Political Report has CA-25 as a toss up and cautions Democrats could nominate the “wrong” candidate.

CA-25: Steve Knight (R)-- Northern LA County: Santa Clarita, Palmdale

Toss Up. Democrats don't face any risk of a primary lockout here, but they do run the risk of nominating the "wrong" candidate. Knight faces four Democrats on the June ballot, but the race for the second runoff slot is between non-profit executive Katie Hill and 2016 nominee Bryan Caforio. The "Beverly Hills trial lawyer" label doomed Caforio in 2016, and a Caforio nomination could help Knight survive in a district Hillary Clinton carried by seven points.

Hill, 31, grew up in the district (unlike Caforio) and has run one of the largest anti-homelessness non-profits in the state. She owns guns and horses and culturally fits this parochial seat. Her first ad features her narrating her pitch while mountain climbing. She would offer a stark generational contrast to Knight, who has a tendency to shoot from the lip. And with the help of EMILY's List and LGBT groups, she's outraised Caforio $1 million to $883,000.

But despite her general election appeal, Hill isn't a sure bet to advance to November. Caforio is running as the "true progressive," retains plenty of name ID from his last race and is fond of replaying an old endorsement video President Obama cut for him in 2016. Meanwhile, Hill risks splitting women's votes with two minor Democrats on the ballot, volcano scientist Jess Phoenix and former Oak Park school board member Mary Pallant.

If Hill advances, Knight would probably become the underdog. If Caforio advances, Knight would still have a chance of keeping this seat in the GOP's column.”

Local Democrats have a real chance to add to a Democratic majority and rebuke Donald Trump’s policies in Washington, but only if they choose the right opponent to Representative Steve Knight.

Katie Hill’s platform of Universal Healthcare, Rebuilding the American Dream, and having an accountable, representative Government resonates with people in the district and is strengthened by the fact that her message is delivered by such a credible person.

#CA25 Is On Fire... As Steve Knight Votes To Abolish Tax Deductions For Fire Damage

I read the Sarah Wire story about the congressional race in CA-25, the swing district that encompasses Santa Clarita, Simi Valley and the Antelope Valley, in the L.A. Times this week and felt a little weird about the new candidate who jumped into the race and who she describes as a "cancer biologist, Michael Masterman-Smith.

CA-25 is a district with a Democratic registration advantage that the DCCC has botched for several cycles in a row, losing it with a vapid carpetbagger they recruited last year (54.2% to 45.8%) even as Hillary was beating Trump in the district on the same day 50.3% to 43.6%. This cycle there are at least 8 Democrats battling it out for the nomination-- the same vapid carpetbagger who lost in 2016 (Bryan Caforio), a volcano researcher named Jess Phoenix, someone named Diedra Greenaway, Masterman-Smith, as of a couple days ago, and the qualified progressive endorsed by Blue America, Katie Hill. (There are also 3 vanity candidates who are just running for the attention and thrill.)

Right-wing incumbent Steve Knight sold out his constituents again and again but really infuriated the district this week when they realized he voted to remove tax deductions for fire and earthquake damages while including similar deductions for problems that plague the red, red South. Why is that such a big deal right now? CA-25 is on fire this week-- in a very, very big way-- and people are losing their homes. And starting to look at Paul Ryan puppet Steve Knight with new eyes-- woke eyes.

Meanwhile, who is Michael Masterman-Smith, aside from another "scientist" playing identity politics by saying it’s time for scientists to help draft healthcare policy? This statement from him sounds sensible enough: "Our leaders are defining these healthcare policies and yet they themselves have no experience in healthcare,," until you realize that most of the doctors in Congress aren't especially any good on healthcare policy issues anyway and just follow their political parties' ideological efforts.

I reached out to prominent cancer researchers about Mastermind-Smith and none of them-- in a very tight community of peers-- had ever heard of him. His research apparently is just about how weed can cure cancer and he's the CEO of CA Labs, Inc., a cannabis pharmaceutical company.

Nor does he live anywhere near CA-25. Wire reported that he "currently lives on a boat in Marina del Rey, but is registered to vote at an address in La Habra, neither of which is in the 25th District." She doesn't answer another question: Is he an actual medical doctor?

Masterman-Smith has degrees from Florida State University and Pepperdine University, and postdoctorate degrees in molecular and medical pharmacology from the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

He said he’s watched as more money and research poured into a healthcare system that just gets more expensive, and he’s seen less respect for scientific thought and reasoning.

“This is the first time in my life I feel my country is not treating me as a citizen because I am a scientist,” he said.

Masterman-Smith said he’s hoping his focus on healthcare policy will set him apart from the more than half a dozen other Democrats who have filed to challenge Knight, a Republican.

CA-25 Should Have Turned Blue Years Ago-- If The DCCC Doesn't Try To Pick A Candidate, It Will Happen In 2018

Last cycle the DCCC recruited some guy into CA-25 from Orange County. He had never set foot in the Santa Clarita, Antelope Valley, Simi Valley district before the DCCC decided to shove the local activist out of the race and install this Beverly Hills lawyer. The result was tragic and very predictable. IN a blue-trending suburban swing district, Hillary Clinton beat Trump handily-- 50.3% to 43.6%, a nice solid win, where Romney had beaten Obama by 2 points in 2012. But the congressional race was a mess for the DCCC's hapless interloper. The two candidates spent virtually the same amount of money-- Republican incumbent Steve Knight spent $1,674,968 and the carpetbagger spent $1,672,102. The DCCC spent massively for their loser candidate-- $3,163,901, compared to just $1,463,05 by the NRSC. Pelosi kicked in another $242,487. The results were ugly. Caforio, who had been banking on Hillary's coattails to sweep him into office, ran a pointless, uninspired, uninspiring and lackluster campaign and couldn't keep up with the enthusiasm she was generating on election day, Knight took 138,755 (53.1%) to Caforio's 122,406 votes (46.9%). That's not how you win back a district.

This year-- although Cheri Bustos and her reactionary posse have encouraged Caforio to run again-- the DCCC seems to be staying out of the primary. That's partially because the local grassroots candidate is exactly the kind of candidate who can win this district back. Unlike Caforio, who doesn't stand for anything except a desire to advance his own career, Katie Hill has a record of community service and a nature agenda of progressive policies she's running on.

A brand new poll from Strategies 360 Research of district voters confirms this is a big way, showing clearly that Katie can beat Knight and that in a rematch, Caforio will score exactly what he scored last time. The polling firm concludes that "Voters respond far more powerfully to Hill’s profile and candidacy than they do to Caforio’s, and Caforio remains highly vulnerable to the same powerful attacks launched against him last year." This are the statements read to poll participants about each candidate:

• Katie Hill, a Democrat, is the daughter of a police officer and a nurse who grew up in our area and still lives with her husband on a small farm in Agua Dulce. She started working at age 12 and put herself through college and grad school, and dedicated her career to serving homeless veterans, families, and seniors as the executive director of a statewide housing and services organization. She has balanced a multi-million dollar budget, overseen a staff of 400 people, passed bipartisan legislation, and helped create thousands of local jobs. Katie is a new kind of leader, a political outsider dedicated to the priorities and needs of people and her community, not special interests or divisive party politics.

• Bryan Caforio, a Democrat raised by two public school teachers, lives in Santa Clarita with his wife. He has spent his career as an attorney representing regular people, from helping tenants in need, to taking on banks regarding the housing crisis, to representing whistleblowers who identified waste and fraud in the system costing taxpayer money. Now he is running for Congress to stand up for hardworking people by fighting against the extreme special interests that take advantage of the customers they’re supposed to serve and the politicians who enable them.

• Steve Knight, a Republican, has dedicated himself to serving our community as a veteran of both the Army and the police force, and now as our Congressman. He has a reputation as a fierce advocate for veterans, fiscal responsibility, job creation, and public safety, standing up for small businesses and fighting for drought relief. In Congress, he will continue to put the safety of our families and the economic success of our region first, push for less spending and lower taxes, and always fight for our local values.

As you can see in the bar graph, match-ups between Katie and Knight show her leading, while the match-up with Caforio and Knight show him losing again (with a similar ceiling of support). Their conclusion: "Katie Hill is the only Democrat in this race who can beat Steve Knight in a head-to-head general election matchup... Only Hill can put together the broad-based coalition needed to win this seat. She far outperforms Caforio among both Democrats and Independents." In fact, Hill performs better among every group polled, from the far left to the center-right. Further, "Caforio manages a 9-point lead against Knight among women but Hill wins them by double that margin (18 points). Hill outperforms Caforio by a net 6 points among voters favorable toward Bernie Sanders, and she runs a net 8 points ahead of him in the Santa Clarita area to which Caforio is a newcomer.

Hill’s profile produces a far more favorable result than Caforio’s (using Caforio’s own website language). After these balanced profiles, Hill leads Knight 49-45% while Caforio trails him 45-50%. Generically, the table below shows a) that voters are far more likely to support a candidate here with Hill’s background than Caforio’s, and b) the importance they place on support a candidate who “grew up in our area and understands local values”-- a statement to which only Katie Hill can lay claim among the Democratic contenders.

There's someone else running as well, Jess Phoenix, but polling shows her with just 5% support. Blue America has endorsed Katie Hill and if you'd like to help her campaign get out her message, win the primary and beat Knight in 2018, please consider contributing at the ActBlue thermometer on the right. Last night Katie told us that "the results of this poll are extremely encouraging. It shows that voters want a candidate who truly understands their needs and values, and who has a demonstrated track record of working to solve the problems we face as a community. As someone who really does understand what affects my friends, family, and neighbors in this district on a daily basis, I've chosen to focus my platform on addressing those concerns. That means fighting until every single person has full healthcare, and fundamentally rebuilding the middle class. Those are huge undertakings, but actually accompishing them starts with ensuring we have a truly representative government-- real people, who really 'get' the communities they want to represent, who aren't beholden to the party establishment or special interests. I've spent my entire life in the district, I know what people care about and how they are hurting, and I hope to be a voice for my community in the House of Representatives."

How To Beat A Republican Incumbent-- Katie Hill Is Mobilizing Everyone

You know what scares me? That I might not be representing a Blue America candidate accurately enough, that I miss up on something important. That’s one of the reasons I encourage them to write guest posts. It’s why I’m always asking them for substantive quotes on issues before Congress. Katie Hill calls herself “the progressive alternative to Steve Knight.” The DCCC dug up some slug from Orange County last year who they ran and who lost badly-- despite Hillary’s big win in the district. The same voters who cast their ballots for her, just couldn’t bring themselves to cast one for him; some walked away and others actually voted for Knight. CA-25 needs a progressive alternative.

Last week Katie told her own story for Elle readers, in an inspiring feature titled Katie Hill Can Balance a $40 Million Budget, Run a Statewide Organization, and Inspire the Masses. What's Next? Congress. You want to know who she is-- and why Blue America endorsed her? This is exactly the way to find out. And if you like what you read and can help her campaign, please consider contributing by tapping on the Blue America ActBlue thermometer on the right. Mattie Kahn introduced her by reminding Elle readers that women-- 51% of the population-- make up just under 20% of Congress, less than 25% percent of all state legislatures and are only six of the country’s governors. Elle is going to feature a woman candidate every week-- and Katie was the first one they chose. She’s a first time candidate but they were impressed with her credentials and accomplishments: She is the “executive director and deputy CEO of PATH, an organization that works to end homelessness in California, has zero political experience and yet every single skill she could possibly need to run for office. She is not only an expert fundraiser (who grew PATH's annual budget to $40 million), but an accomplished multi-tasker who's deeply in touch with the needs of her community. No wonder. Hill grew up in and around the district she's running to represent and now lives on a farm with her husband and several animals who made their voices heard during this very interview. While she challenges Rep. Steve Knight for his seat, she's planning to stay on at PATH and let her husband do all the laundry. Oh, and did we mention she's 29?” Katie, in her own words:

When I was a kid, both my mom and my dad worked night shifts, so we would spend a lot of time at my grandfather's house. He taught at UCLA and was just really into history. Before bed, when other kids heard fairy tales, he would tell us about the American founding fathers and the beginning of democracy [laughs].

Because of that and because so many people in my family have served in the military, it was always really drilled into me what democracy was supposed to be. It was very, "We live in the greatest country in the world because our government is a true democracy-- of and by and for the people." Having that as an ideal as a child and then watching how it's devolved over the past several years-- it's really affected me. This isn't how it should be, and so one big reason I'm running is because I think we need to change that and get to the point where the political system works for real people and truly represents all of us, not just people who can "afford" to have a voice.

On a more practical level, I feel really prepared. I'm the executive director of a large homeless services organization, PATH. We advocate, we help develop policy, we coordinate funding to deal with homelessness. I don't know if you know, but homelessness in California is up; we're at the highest in the country now, and it's really impacting all of our communities here. So I've been completely focused on that, even during the 2016 election. Prop HHH [that would free up $1.2 billion in bonds to pay for 10,000 housing units for the homeless] was on the ballot in November. I was obviously thinking about the national election, but I was really giving all of my time and energy to this local initiative. It passed with almost 80 percent of the vote, which no one expected. But on the day of that victory, of course, Donald Trump was elected president and Republicans held on to the Senate and the House. We realized not only would we not be able to move forward on so much of what we were fighting for, but we risked moving backward in a huge way.

I started to see immediately that no matter how much we're able to do, if we don't deal with the systemic problem that we're faced with as a country, we won't be able to move forward. And very early on, we learned how fast the budget was going to be affected. Because of those initial cuts, we saw... homelessness in an increased way. And then I learned my district was going to be one of the most imperative districts to take back the house in 2018. It's one of the top-six most vulnerable states in the entire country. In fact, Hillary [Clinton] won the district by seven points, but the Republicans congressman won it by six, and it's the last Republican-held seat in L.A. County. I've spent my entire life here, and it's my home. I know it as well as anyone. Once I figured out all that, I found out that the reason we still have a Republican congressman is because we've never been able to find a strong Democrat who's actually from the district, who's able to fundraise, and has the background that is needed to work on the issues that matter to the community like I do. It was suggested to me by a few people. I put it off for a while, and then finally, as it became clearer and clearer that the work that I've been fighting for was at risk of being all for nothing, I had to look into it and maybe step up to the plate. I did, and it just took off. We passed an additional measure that we'd been advocating for, Measure H, in March, and I announced.

Already, I'm learning how much it takes to run a campaign. I'm lucky I have my husband; he's key, because he does every single thing in the house. I don't remember the last time I did laundry or made food of any kind [laughs]. That's something that I can't say enough, especially as a woman, when women too often have the burden of doing everything around the house. He and my family are my backbone. Plus, since I'm from here, my sister and my dad and my mom all live here in the district, which makes a huge difference.

I live in one of those rare purple districts, and I think it's very much emblematic of the middle class. It's a mainly suburban area within LA County, and it's kind of comprised of three main population centers. Two of them are pretty well off, and one of them is less well off. The people who live there, making less, should be in the middle class and have been striving to be in the middle class, but haven't had those opportunities for a variety of reasons. And even in those areas where people have done better, there's still a lot of struggle. And even though we have a lot of access to education, we're finding that there are people my own age, who have a master's degree in some cases, and can't even get a $45,000-a-year job.

On both sides of my family, my grandparents grew up in total poverty and came to California during the Great Depression. The only way they were able to work their way out of that was by joining the military, which is how they both went on to be able to go to college. One of them ended up becoming an aerospace engineer and worked on the Apollo space shuttle. The other ended up going to Princeton and became that UCLA professor, who kind of helped raise me. The fact that they were able to go to college for free and put that education to work is what we need to be able to offer again. That's how my family got here, and I think that kind of opportunity doesn't exist for enough people now. Let's say you're born into a poor family, and your parents are never going to be able to pay for school, and you can't afford to take $40,000 or $50,000 in loans. What kind of opportunities can we provide for you, if you're willing to work?

And we have a model for how to have those conversations. I think [Bernie] Sanders did a better job at that than the rest of the Democratic Party in talking about this, and that's why we saw so much momentum there. We have to be able to build. I think the truth is most people don't want to hear about policy. They want to hear, "I understand what you're going through, and you can trust me to fight for you and what you care about." But we can do both-- fight for policy and resonate with people at the same time.

The campaign, for me, is about mobilizing everyone. We've done a bunch of events at the local high schools, and we're doing a huge youth and millennial outreach. I know that typically the idea is that young people won't show up to vote, especially for midterms, and you can't count on them. But I think this is a different time and I think young people need someone who doesn't just count them out immediately, that they can relate to and who has a message for them. If we can provide that and we can get people excited, they will show up. I've been so impressed with the kinds of thoughtful questions that I've gotten from young people, from Girl Scouts, from teenagers. That gives me hope, and I think this is our generation's time to step up and start answers those questions.

Congressional Republicans Are Starting To Brace For The 2018 Anti-Trump Wave

Remember how well Trump's coattails worked out for Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire?

We still have a year and a half before the 2018 midterm election day and I feel confident we'll be seeing a LOT more stories like the one Politico's Jake Sherman wrote to start this week off: GOP growing worried they’ll lose House.

Republicans are growing increasingly worried that they will lose the House of Representatives. The pervasive pessimism comes as there continues to be a dearth of legislative victories, and a toxic political environment that appears to be worsening. Of course, the midterm elections are nearly a year and a half away. But more than a dozen Republicans we’ve spoken to in the last few weeks say the prospect for political and legislative wins big and small is dimming. And as much as President Donald Trump has worked to woo over fellow Republicans with dinners at the White House and regular meetings with GOP leadership, it hasn’t had much of an impact on the overall state of play.

The rank and file has been frustrated with the House committees, which have not produced a drumbeat of legislation to tout as victories. And the party is deeply split on health-care reform, a tax overhaul and infrastructure spending. Passing a budget to set the groundwork for tax reform is still seen as far off. And the congressional schedule doesn’t leave a lot of time to kick things into high gear. The House is in session for 13 more days and the Senate is in session for 14 more days before the July 4 recess. Not to mention, there’s serious concern in the GOP that there could be more revelations about President Donald Trump, and Robert Mueller’s investigation still remains the wild card. Attorney General Jeff Sessions testifying Tuesday before the Senate Intel Committee is expected to just add more drama to distract from the GOP agenda into the mix.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN? Republicans will be less willing to take risks as they shift into political survival mode.

Different Republicans in vulnerable seats are navigating these treacherous waters in different ways. Carlos Curbelo, for example, in a South Florida swing district Hillary won handily, 56.7-40.6%, is doing whatever he can to separate himself from Trump in ways that will appeal to his constituents-- like on Climate Change, which is already manifesting itself in his district with rising oceans and regular street flooding.

New Jersey plutocrat Tom MacArthur is taking the opposite tact. He's in a swingy South Jersey district that voted 51.8-47.2% for Obama in 2012 but flipped to Trump last year 51.4% to 45.2%. MacArthur joined the mainstream conservative grouping, the Tuesday Group, but stabbed them in the back, making a deal with Mark Meadows of the hard right Freedom Caucus to wreck Medicaid and pass TrumpCare in the House. He was kicked out of the Tuesday Group and has attached himself to Trump. On Sunday afternoon Trump headlined a fat cat fundraiser for MacArthur at his sleazy Bedminster Golf Course (in Leonard Lance's 7th district; Lance, who voted for TrumpCare in committee, felt the pressure in the district and then flip-flopped on the final vote, infuriating Trump, was not invited to the event). Chris Christie was there but the press wasn't allowed to hear Trump and MacArthur address a crowd of about 100 wealthy right-wing check writers. The invitation said that the event-- Trump's first for a member of Congress since Putin installed him in the White House-- was sponsored by MacArthur Victory, the NRCC, TMAC PAC, and the New Jersey Republican State Committee. MacArthur is a notorious self-funder, buying his first race (2014) with a 5 million dollar check but taking so much in special interest bribes-- nearly $2 million-- as a freshman that he only had to write himself a $200,000 check for his 2016 campaign.

Anyway, all across the country Republican incumbents in swing districts are going to have to do the calculus and decide if they're going to run from Trump or embrace him. So far many have warily tried to stick with him despite all the scandal and controversy. California congressmembers on shaky political ground-- like Darrell Issa, Mimi Walters, Dana Rohrabacher, Steve Knight, Devin Nunes and Duncan Hunter-- have made the bet the the DCCC is too lame to field effective campaigns against them and they have tied their political futures to Trump. Zombie-like they seem to expect him to suddenly change his ways and turn the disastrous approval numbers-- not just for himself, but for that party-- around.

Katie Hill is the Santa Clarita Valley progressive who we're hoping replaces Trump rubber stamp Steve Knight in CA-25. This morning, in a wide ranging discussion of the issues facing her neighbors in L.A. and Ventura counties she mentioned that "Government health care spending is vital to the well being our community and it’s also a jobs issue. Steve Knight’s yes vote on Trumpcare was an irreverent vote to our very purple, working class district. Instead of stripping 77,000 of our neighbors of their health care, we need to be bringing more people into the health care system by strengthening the ACA and eventually moving towards a single payer system. That way people can get the care they need and those working in health related professions, like my mom who is a nurse, can make a decent living working in a compassionate profession. If we look at Knight’s voting record, he's voting 100% in favor of Trump’s legislative agenda... To me, this is a massive failure of the representative government we’ve been promised. We have to put the concerns of our neighbors before scoring political points with party leaders. Most importantly, we need representatives willing to buck partisan party politics when it compromises the well being of our community."

Santa Clarita Gives Right Wing Radical Steve Knight An Angry, Sour Reception

Steve Knight has a long history in politics-- and one word no one who has ever followed his career would use to describe him is "moderate" or even "mainstream." He was a Palmdale city councilman (2006), then an assemblyman (2009) and then a state senator (2013) before he was elected to Congress in 2014. Until recently he always seemed to take delight in being the furthest right crackpot in the room.

Knight's voting record in the state legislature would be ultra-conservative if he represented a backward district in Alabama or Mississippi. In suburban L.A., it's just bizarre... and a throwback to another century. Widely considered a shill for the NRA and an automaton for the most extreme right-wing proposals that ever came up in Sacramento, Knight was one of only 11 state senators who voted against increasing the minimum wage and, despite representing a district with a huge Hispanic population, he was one of only 8 senators who voted against drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants. When the Governor decided to expand Medicaid in line with the Affordable Care Act, only 7 die-hard right-wingers opposed it, Knight being one of them, naturally. He was also one of only 8 senators to fully back unregulated fracking in earthquake zones in California. He was always vehemently anti-Choice and anti-gay and voted against every piece of legislation promoting equality that has ever come before him. For example, in May, 2013 he was one of only 9 senators to vote against a bipartisan bill that prohibits tax-exempt status for organizations that discriminate against the LGBT community and he also one of only seven sociopaths who opposed an anti-bullying bill that passed the Senate with huge bipartisan support. One legislator who served with him told me that Knight isn't a bad guy on a personal level but that he's "an inflexible ideologue… probably the single least effective member of the state legislature."

Knight's district has turned pretty blue of late and he's really an anomaly who was left behind primarily because of grotesque DCCC incompetence and corruption. Eric Bauman should throw the DCCC out of the state and have the California Democratic Party take over recruitment of candidates and allow the DCCC to send and spend only through the state party. (Every state should do that but California is in position to lead the way. Sorry for the tangent.) Although Obama won the district-- very narrowly, 49.4% to 48.3% in 2008, the district voted for crackpot Republican Carly Fiorina in 2010 by a pretty wide margin over Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer, 54.0% to 38.9% and two years later supported Meg Whitman for governor over Jerry Brown, 50.9% to 41.4%, and Romney over Obama, 49.7% to 47.8%. Trump seems to have turned the beat around entirely, Hillary kicking his ass 50.3% to a dismal 43.6%. But all the while, the DCCC has stumbled all over itself, unable to win the congressional seat. Last year the party bosses in DC decided to parachute in some guy from Orange County who worked at a law firm in Beverly Hills and had never previously set foot in the district. That went over badly and their candidate, some guy named Caforio, was clobbered as Clinton voters ignored him. Knight beat him 53.1% to 46.9%. (That was even too much for the DCCC and they decided to discourage him from running again in 2016, although their clueless West Coast staffer, conservative shill Kyle Layman, didn't get the message and persuaded him to run again anyway.)

Thursday afternoon-- when most people are working or at school-- Knight held a sparsely attended but raucous town hall meeting at Canyon High School in Santa Clarita. It got really raucous when he started lying to a woman claiming "On the AHCA, no one will be kicked off Medicaid," a program that is slated to be cut by around 800 billion dollars under the TrumpCare bill he voted for. He committed to another woman that he would never vote to cut Medicaid, which he had already done over and over and over, including just 2 weeks ago. "I don’t see cutting any of those programs. You’ve got my commitment," he lied. Or does he not even know what he's voting for and against? It's like he's from another planet. He told the audience that Congress would never, ever, cut that safety next-- even though that's exactly what Congress has been doing at every opportunity, something Ryan and his puppets like Knight attempt to whittle away day in and day out.

When several other constituents confronted him about his vote to allow internet service providers to sell people's private information without their permission or even knowledge, he pretty much admitted he didn't know what was in the bill he just voted for by rote, like every other bill Ryan and McCarthy put in front of him.

Closing the event, Carole Lutness, an elderly Valencia resident, said she believed America was witnessing the collapse of democracy and said Trump is a “crook” who only cares about himself.

She was met with a standing ovation.

Lutness told The Signal this was the core issue America is facing and said the “one percent” are stealing from the rest of Americans.

It is the change of the whole structure of government,” Lutness said to Knight. “We have to get money out of politics.”

Knight said if money was going to stay out of elections, it would have to be all money.

“If we want to get corporate money out of politics, they also want to get union money out,” Knight said.

Hopefully the DCCC will stay out of CA-25 this primary season and allow a hometown girl, Katie Hill, to win the nomination without their heavy-handed interference. We asked her why she thought Knight got such an surly reception in Santa Clarita. "The bottom line," she told us, "is that people are angry and they are scared. Health care is something that we just shouldn't have to worry about whether we can afford-- people shouldn't forsake their own health and well-being because they need to pay the rent. Knight's constituents know that the AHCA is going to make things harder for them and the people they care about, while the wealthiest Americans get huge tax breaks and insurance companies and big pharma continue to make record profits. His vote shows whose side he's on-- and it's not ours." Blue America has endorsed Katie and if you'd like to help her end Knight's ridiculous career, please tap the thermometer on the right and contribute what you can.

Winning In 2018-- CA-25

Even the worst Democrats in Congress-- and the most unpalatable DCCC recruits-- have caught on to the fact that railing against Trump is profitable. A case can be made that it is Debbie Wasserman Schultz who is responsible, at least as much as Putin or Comey, for installing Trump in the White House. And now she sends e-mails several times a week begging for money by robotically denigrating Trump. Being anti-Trump doesn't mean a politician backs a progressive agenda. Wasserman Schultz, who opposes John Conyers' Medicare-For-All Act, for example, and is still the poster gal for DC corruption, can be anti-Trump 'til the cows come home but that doesn't mean anyone in their right mind should back her against progressive primary challenger Tim Canova who is running against her in 2018.

As you've probably noticed, effective and sincere Resistance Leaders in Congress-- people like Ted Lieu, Elizabeth Warren, Luis Gutierrez, and Pramila Jayapal-- aren't just sending out fundraising emails for themselves; they've been putting together the foundations for what congressional resistance to Trump and Trumpism looks like. And every one of them has expressly acknowledged over and over and over that being against Trump isn't the be all and end all to the progressive agenda-- not by a long shot. It's become a key point Blue America talks about with the candidates we back.

Our newest endorsed candidate, Katie Hill, feels as strongly about it as we do. Her district-- a blue Southern California seat that an incompetent DCCC has allowed to stay in Republican hands-- is held by knee-jerk, right-wing Republican Steve Knight, a Trump and TrumpCare supporter. The district went convincingly for Hillary last year-- 50.3-43.6%, a switch after having backed Romney against Obama in 2012. But while Hillary was winning by over 6 points, the DCCC imported candidate lost by close to 10 points. Another perfect example of an utterly clueless DCCC big-footing into a primary in a district they don't know anything about. They spent about $3.5 million on their Beverly Hills attorney candidate and lost 54.2% to 45.8%. Reactionary Blue Dog Cheri Bustos, vice chair of the DCCC recruitment committee, wants him to run again. I'm sure Paul Ryan, Steve Knight and Kevin McCarthy do as well. Blue America has just started raising money for Katie Hill today and you can contribute to her campaign by tapping on the thermometer at the right. She penned the following guest post for us that goes to the heart of why it's so important for progressives to win congressional seats like CA-25. "Our nation stands at a crossroads," she began. "Do we continue down the same self-destructive path we’ve been walking for decades? Or do we blaze a new trail into the future?"



Moving Away From The Politics Of Fear
-by Katie Hill,
Congressional candidate, Santa Clarita, Simi Valley, the Antelope Valley

Donald Trump is not the problem. He’s the symptom of a damaged political consciousness in America.

Opposition politics have become the new normal. In 2010, Mitch McConnell declared the sole ambition of the Republican Party for “President Obama to be a one-term president.” While Democrats resisted the urge to give in to these schoolyard tactics at first, in 2016 they gave in and centered their entire campaign strategy around personal attacks on Donald Trump, rather than policy.

They played the fear card-- to much less effect-- and it lost. Big time. Which is why now is the time for us to move away from the politics of fear and into an affirmative political vision moving forward.

But what is our vision? We have a great, grassroots resistance that has emerged, but right now, all we’re doing is reacting to Trump’s every move. He is setting the agenda, maintaining the initiative, and we’re screaming on the sidelines.

It’s understandable. Trump is a disaster. He’s doing things that would have been unimaginable in any other time. He is putting our country at risk, going against our every value with every unhinged twitter outburst. We, of course, must resist.

But that’s not enough. We must be more than the anti-Trump party or we fail. Period.

It’s time for us to start screaming this from the rooftops. We can fight Trump at the same time, but we can’t stop looking ahead-- because the fate of our party and, quite frankly, our country, depends on it.

• I, like most Americans on either side of the aisle, believe that our country isn’t broken, but our political system is. The extreme polarization of politics and gerrymandering have turned voters off. Consequently, people who are supposed to be representing all of us only truly represent a tiny minority of those still voting. We need to restore faith and trust in our government and that means enacting meaningful campaign finance reform. Supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen’s United isn’t enough-- we need to elect people who are willing to regulate themselves as representatives and stand up to the people who hold the purse strings.

• We must call this rigged system of crony capitalism what it is and do everything we can to address the ever-growing income inequality in America. Our economy gives big banks and big oil massive government subsidies while small businesses struggle to survive or fail. Our health care system bankrupts sick Americans so big pharma and insurance companies can make record profits. Our tax code allows Wall Street bankers and hedge funds, who just a decade ago destroyed the economy, to pay less than half the tax rate a middle-class family would pay. We need to put the system back to work for every American, not just a privileged few.

• We need to tackle long-neglected social reforms, starting with healthcare. It’s not good enough to just save the ACA, we need to work tirelessly until we ensure that no American must choose between getting the health care they need and putting a roof over their heads. We must deal with the rising rates of mental health disorders and substance abuse, and ensure that we are providing effective, early intervention and treatment to people regardless of their ability to pay. We need massive criminal justice reform. We need to make sure that everyone-- no matter who they are or where they come from-- can afford college or trade school and not come out with a lifetime of debt. We need to address the housing affordability and homelessness crisis that is plaguing so many of our communities. The list goes on-- every one of these issues needs to be talked about, and we can’t afford to wait any longer.

• We need to be pro-sustainability in every sense of the word. The future of labor goes hand in hand with a progressive, pro-environmental policy. Research shows the growing green economy creates more jobs per unit of energy than the fossil fuel industry. Perhaps one of the biggest perks of a renewable economy is these jobs cannot be shipped overseas. By installing and developing green infrastructure, we will create local and regional projects benefitting the communities nearby. Strengthening local projects and supporting green energy makes for a more sustainable planet, and a more sustainable economy.

• Finally, it’s time we focused our energy and attention on the cooperative nature of life and governing in America. For far too long, politicians have tried to divide us with polarizing, partisan rhetoric. In the real world, we get things done as families, friends, neighbors and communities, without devolving into a mudslinging circus. Every single day, diverse Americans run businesses together, coach little league together, put on theater productions, run our school districts and cities, support each other, and keep our communities going. If we want to solve the countless problems facing our country right now, we must face them together.

It is time for a more affirmative political movement in our country. We’re not lacking the ideas, innovation or ingenuity; we’re lacking the political will. Currently, the establishment is more vested in constant re-election campaigning and serving their corporate masters. That’s their game, but they can only play it if we allow them to.

Instead, let’s create our own game-- one founded on the ideals of integrity, sustainability, cooperation and realizing the promise of self-government. It’s not up to them-- we’re the stewards of this democracy.

I hope you’ll join me on this journey because I know we can do this and we will make our government and our country better, together.


Learn more about Katie at her website and by following her on Twitter @KatieHill4CA. And please consider contributing to her campaign here.

How Toxic Will Trump Be For GOP Candidates in 2018-- AFTER The Honeymoon Is Over?

Friday afternoon, we mentioned that the RNC met last week in California and that Trump sent them a crackpot video about how he would campaign for their candidates in the 2018 midterms. That caused alarm-- a great deal of alarm. His base still loves him-- they're either profoundly stupid, profoundly racist or profoundly addicted to opioids (or, in many cases) all three-- but among normal Americans, Trump is the most unpopular and disliked president in history. There are virtually no vulnerable members of Congress who would want him in their districts campaigning for them. Congressional incumbents like Barbara Comstock, Carlos Curbelo, Martha McSally, Mimi Walters might be better off if Trump denounced them and campaigned against them! In fact, look how Trump did in these Republican-held districts and remember, he's much more unpopular now:

• FL-27- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen- 38.9%
• CA-21- David Valadao- 39.7%
• FL-26- Carlos Curbelo- 40.6%
• CO-06- Mike Coffman- 41.3%
• MN-03- Erik Paulsen- 41.4%
• VA-10- Barbara Comstock- 42.2%
• CA-39- Ed Royce- 42.9%
• IL-06- Pete Roskam- 43.2%
• CA-49- Darrell Issa- 43.2%
• CA-21- Steve Knight- 43.6%
• CA-45- Mimi Walters- 44.4%
• WA-08- Dave Reichert- 44.7%
• AZ-02- Martha McSally- 44.7%
• NY-24- John Katko- 45.3%
• CA-10- Jeff Denham 45.5%
• KS-03- Kevin Yoder- 46.0%
• CA-48- Dana Rohrabacher- 46.2%
• TX-23- Will Hurd- 46.4%
• TX-32- Pete Sessions- 46.6%
• PA-07- Pat Meehan- 47.0%
• TX-07- John Culberson- 47.1%
• NJ-07- Leonard Lance- 47.5%
• PA-06- Ryan Costello- 47.6%

And even in districts Trump managed to win because of how much people loathed Hillary, his pathetic win numbers-- like 48.2 in NE-02 (Bacon) 48.7% in IA-01 (Blum), 49.7% in MI-11 (Trott), 46.5 in MN-02 (Lewis) and 48.5% in IA-03 (Young)-- are not likely to elicit invitations from embattled incumbents. Yesterday, I spoke with a staffer in Leonard Lance's office, a lifelong Republican true-believer. "If Trump makes his stays at Bedminster [a Trump golf resort in Lance's district where Trump has regularly met with his Mafia cronies] into campaign events for us, we'll lose the seat; period. Independents are the key to reelection here and independents in this part of New Jersey have developed a visceral dislike for him and don't believe a word he says. We're better off if he doesn't even endorse the Congressman or mention there's a race."

Kia Hamadanchy, a young Orange County attorney and former Sherrod Brown staffer is running for the Orange County seat Mimi Walters pretends to represent. Kia has his fingers crossed that Trump will show up in Irvine, Tustin, Lake Forest or Mission Viejo. "I'd love nothing more than to see Donald Trump out here in Orange County campaigning for Mimi Walters, one of his favorite members of Congress. She already put her loyalty to Donald Trump above the people of her district by voting for his disastrous healthcare plan. I can only hope he repays her loyalty by showing up time and time again for her between now and next November. That is of course in the unlikely event that Mimi Walters comes out of hiding and happens to do a public event ever again."

Katie Hill, the progressive candidate up in CA-25, is as eager to see Trump in Santa Clarita, Lancaster or Palmdale as Kia is to see him in Orange County. "Knight and the Republicans should be terrified of how angry and mobilized people are here in the 25th. Trump's and the Republicans' policies, quite simply, will hurt our people here and they know it. Knight's yes vote on the AHCA in particular was a betrayal of the promises he made to all of us, and that sense of betrayal is going to stick around. I truly hope they get scared enough to bring Trump here to campaign on behalf of Knight and against me. I know that will only seal Knight's fate and I am ready to take them both on."

And Randy Bryce is the independent-minded iron worker who's standing up to the DCCC to, in all likelihood, take on Paul Ryan in his southeast Wisconsin district. He can't wait for Ryan-- let alone Trump-- to show up on the campaign hustings in Kenosha, Janesville, Racine, Burlington, Elkhorn... or even in Muskego or somewhere else in beet red Waukesha County. "I would absolutely love to see Donald Trump come to Wisconsin in order to campaign on behalf of Paul Ryan. Not only would it mean that Ryan finally met with the voters of the 1st CD but it would be a fantastic opportunity for the thousands who have buyers' remorse to let it be known that 2018 will bring some badly needed changes."

Guess who

Over the weekend, Politico's Alex Isenstadt reported on the RNC meeting and how the top level Republican Party officials there have been grappling with a profoundly unstable White House. Trump sent a 5-minute video address in which he said "Your commitment will help us keep the House in 2018 and gain more seats in the Senate. I’ll be going around to different states, I’ll be working hard for the people running for Congress and the people running for the Senate. We can gain a lot of seats, especially if it all keeps going like it's going now." To which there were both groans and nervous laughs. "With the White House in meltdown mode," Isenstadt wrote, "top Republican Party officials and operatives gathered at a posh oceanside resort here and contemplated a 2018 midterm election that will test them in unimaginable ways. At the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting, strategists expressed alarm about a pair of upcoming special House elections and what they might portend for the battle for the lower chamber next year. One high-profile potential candidate outlined how he would distinguish himself from the embattled president."

“I don’t think there is anything to compare it to. You have a non-politician who’s the president, so he doesn’t do things in a political way and that completely drives insiders of both parties bonkers because they don’t understand it,” said Randy Evans, a Republican National Committeeman from Georgia who was a top adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. “Right now, we’re just in a completely different and foreign political environment where pollsters and pundits and focus groups don’t matter.”

“Anybody that tells you they have a feel for what’s going to happen next year is just delusional,” he added.

The House elections took center stage at the meeting, since the Senate is seen as much less likely to change hands.

In one presentation on the GOP's challenges ahead, the National Republican Congressional Committee’s executive director, John Rogers, pointed out that far more vulnerable Republican incumbents represent districts that Hillary Clinton won than endangered Democratic incumbents in districts that Trump carried. Rogers reminded attendees that midterm elections are historically unkind to the party in the White House.

And he offered a surprisingly unvarnished forecast of looming special elections that the party has been favored to win. While the race for a Georgia House seat is a tossup, he said, one in Montana later this month is closer than public polling indicated... One of the attendees at that session was Jeff Essmann, who as Montana's Republican Party chairman is working to salvage the congressional seat. Republicans, Essmann said, face as volatile an environment as he could remember in his four decades in politics.

...[A]s party officials begin preparing for 2018, tensions are flaring. On Wednesday, as the besieged administration struggled to answer questions about the Comey dismissal, the NRCC released a fundraising email that raised the prospect of a Democratic-led Trump impeachment.

Several strategists close to the RNC and the White House, neither of which got a heads-up before the message was sent, said they were rankled by the move. The House GOP campaign arm and the administration have already been at odds over the early planning for 2018.

As word of the email raced through the hotel, NRCC officials, who had been watching NBA playoff games and holding meetings in a downstairs bar, scrambled to control the damage.

With the Comey firing and Russia investigation dominating the headlines, there were also moments of discomfort. During a welcome reception Wednesday, a national committeeman took the stage and, perhaps jokingly, referred to those assembled as “comrades," drawing grimaces.

At times, the RNC appeared to take pains to obscure any dissent about Trump. On Thursday, RNC members gathered for a closed-door breakfast meeting to discuss issues confronting the committee. Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel, fearing leaks, implored attendees to turn off their phones and not record the proceedings. She also asked RNC and hotel staffers to leave the room.

McDaniel warned the group that reporters were covering the event and trying to eavesdrop in the hopes of writing negative stories.

McDaniel's aides insisted the move was typical. Yet some members felt she was going too far to project a united front.

For all of Trump’s difficulties, however, GOP leaders said his base of support-- among the conservative grassroots and party hierarchy-- was largely intact. At least for now.

“I think he’s still in a honeymoon period,” said Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan GOP chairman, “and he’s getting a pass on a lot of things that in another six months, eight months might become a bigger issue.”