The Blue Wave Looks Bigger Than Anyone (In DC) Expected

In the political prognostication biz, DC Insiders are very conservative. I don't mean they back conservative policies or that they're anti-Choice or pro-Wall Street. I mean they are loathe to go out on a ledge prognosticating. When the degree of Trump's and Ryan's toxicity started becoming apparent outside the Beltway observers were predicting the Democrats would-- despite DCCC incompetence and corruption-- win back at least the 24 seats the Democrats need to take back the House. The DC-based prognosticators all agreed that the Dems could look forward to making gains, perhaps even double digit gains (10) but probably not. By the time it became clear-- primarily based on the 20-point swings special elections in red districts-- that the Democrats were on the track to win dozens of seats in an historic repudiation of Trump and Trumpism, DC prognosticators grudgingly agreed that 24 wins was "likely." Now that Democrats are looking toward 70, 80 or even more seats, we are getting catch-up pieces like this one from Stuart Rothenberg in Roll Call: Insiders See Democratic House Gains of 30-45 seats. "Polling, election results, fundraising," he wrote, "tend to point in one direction." That's right, they do-- and more than the pros are willing to admit. The wave is coming, even blind, deaf and dumb DC prognosticators see that now. But how big and how powerful?

Seven and a half months before the midterm elections, the combination of attitudinal and behavioral evidence leads to a single conclusion: The Democrats are very likely to win control of the House in November.

Just as important, Republican and Democratic campaign strategists also agree that an electoral wave has already formed. The attitudinal evidence begins with national polling.

President Donald Trump’s job approval rating has settled into a relatively narrow range, with between 39 percent and 42 percent of registered voters approving of his performance. Only 33 percent to 37 percent of respondents say that the country is headed in the right direction, another bit of evidence that reflects the extent of support for Trump and the Republican Party.

The current congressional generic ballot question suggests that Democrats have an 8- or 9-point advantage, a significant margin even if it is at least a couple of points below what Democrats would ideally want going into the midterms.

Taken together, these numbers paint a dangerous picture for the president and his party.

Trump drew about 46 percent of the vote in 2016, so the current numbers suggest a modest, but significant, erosion in support.

Exactly where the slippage has taken place isn’t clear, though it is certainly less severe in rural America and more significant in the suburbs.

That means some states, and some congressional districts, have been affected more than others.

The new March 10-14 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of adults is consistent with other surveys over the past six months. It shows Democrats with a large generic ballot advantage among younger voters, women, whites with at least a college degree and voters age 65 and older.

The GOP’s great strength in the generic ballot is among two pro-Trump groups, men and whites without a college degree. Unfortunately for the party, the survey also shows Democrats, whites with a college degree and older voters as having the greatest interest in the election (and therefore the greatest likelihood of voting). Each of those groups prefers a Democratic Congress.

Moreover, while independents don’t traditionally turn out in big numbers in midterms, one veteran Republican strategist sees them as a huge problem this year. “They are tired of the drama,” he said.

The worst case for the GOP, of course, would be mediocre Republican turnout combined with strong Democratic participation and independents behaving like Democrats (which is what they did in 2006).

If that happens, Republicans would take quite a beating in the fall.

The behavioral part of the equation is just as troubling for Republicans, since it confirms the survey data.

Election results in the Virginia governor’s race last year, the special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th District last week, and other state legislative special elections around the country have shown Democratic energy and turnout, particularly in suburban areas.

Hillary Clinton won Virginia by 5 points in 2016, but Democrat Ralph Northam took the gubernatorial contest last fall by almost 9 points.

Trump carried Pennsylvania’s 18 District by 20 points, but GOP nominee Rick Saccone ran about even with his Democratic opponent last week.

And in a Wisconsin state Senate special election in January, a district Trump carried by 17 points went Democratic by about 10 points.

Of course, not every state legislative contest produced that strong a gain for Democrats, and Republicans held all their open House seats in special elections last year.

But the recent trend is clear-- Republicans are swimming against a strong current.

“It’s baked in now,” one veteran Republican campaign veteran told me, noting the GOP’s problems with women and college-educated voters. “We knew single women hated [the Republican Party]. We couldn’t do anything about that. But married women were different. We figured out how to deal with them by talking about pocketbook issues. But now college-educated women hate us. Even with the current economy. It’s the bullying, the nastiness, the tweeting. It’s all about Trump’s behavior.”

Republican insiders also worry that a chunk of “Trump voters” won’t turn out in November even though they still like the president personally. “There are blue-collar Democrats who voted for Trump but don’t care about the Republican Party. They are unlikely to turn out for a Republican candidate in the fall, though they could still help Trump in 2020,” one GOP consultant said.

The problem for Republican congressional candidates this year is that there are plenty of clouds hanging over the president and the country despite the strong economic numbers and business optimism.

North Korea and the Russia investigation are only the most obvious ones, but the president’s inclination to attack (or counterattack) and disrupt makes it more likely that controversies and chaos will continue.

Indeed, the campaign season is likely to lead to more Trump political rallies, where his freewheeling style and off-the-cuff comments can create more controversies.

So, what is the current trajectory of the 2018 midterms? I interviewed a wide range of campaign professionals, including some sympathetic to the president. All insisted on anonymity, and almost all believe the House will flip.

The veterans generally expect GOP losses in the 30- to 45-seat range, far more than the two-dozen seats House Democrats need for majority control.

The retirement of longtime Republican incumbents from competitive districts is adding to the problem, as is candidate fundraising. While there is plenty of GOP super PAC money available, Democratic House candidates are outraising their Republican counterparts.

Given that, national conservative and Republican groups will need to make tough decisions about who to fund and who to cut off as the election cycle progresses.

Obviously, events between now and November could change things (something I intend to address in my next column). But that’s the point. The burden is on Republicans-- and the president-- to change the cycle’s current trajectory. If they don’t, the House will flip.

Conservative prognosticators still say, "but it's early... things could chance." I'd change one word in that. I'd swap out "but" for "and" because, in all likelihood, over the next 7 and a half months things will get even worse for Republicans, not better. Trump will continue horrifying voters by, well, being Trump and Ryan and McConnell will continue enabling him, infuriating independents, encouraging Democrats to get out in masses and discouraging mainstream Republicans from voting. I'd say the Democratic wins will be closer to 100 seats than to Rothenberg's top number, 45.

There's actually one good DCCC executive, West Coast Regional Vice Chair, Ted Lieu. He agrees that the sky's the limit on the number of seats Democrats can win in November. This morning he told us that "What makes America great is that the voters get to make a course correction every two years. The overwhelming majority of Americans are horrified by the destructive behavior and policies of Donald Trump and the Republicans who enable him. Over 100 Republican held congressional districts are now being targeted. As the Conor Lamb victory shows, every vote counts. If we work hard and keep fighting, we will usher in a blue tsunami this November."

Yesterday Chuck Todd's First Read noted that the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll "finds Democrats with a 10-point lead in congressional preference, with Dems holding the advantage in enthusiasm and among independents, and with college-educated white women breaking heavily against the GOP. But there’s another ominous sign for Republicans in our poll: They’re losing ground on the congressional-preference question in GOP-held congressional districts."

His Bottom line: "Given that so much of the 2018 House battleground is in red/purple areas, the GOP being in single digits-- or even-- in Republican-held districts is a problem."

Dayna Steele was one of the few candidates who was in a contested Texas primary who won outright and doesn't have a May 22 runoff to face. Her next election will be against one of the most right-wing Republicans in Congress, Brian Babin, and in one of the "safest" red seats (TX-36). But the prognosticators who rate it "safe" don't understand the intensity of the connection Dayna, formerly southeast Texas' most beloved radio personality, has with voters. Yes, the PVI is a daunting R+26 and, yes, Trump beat Hillary 72-25%. But Dayna is anything but the status quo candidate Hillary was. Nor is she blinded by the recent successes Democrats have been having in special elections. "Though the momentum feels great," she told us today, "we cannot become too sure of ourselves or complacent. That is just what the Republicans are hoping will happen. It's what happened in the 2016 presidential race-- we got too cocky. In the words of the late great Yogi Berra, 'It ain't over til it's over.' We must stay loud and energized. We must keep thousands of boots on the ground. If you have the money, keep donating. Find the reddest districts in the nation (mine) and throw everything you can behind those Democratic candidates. Conor Lamb was in an R+11 district that Trump win by 19 points. And Lamb won. Now do the same for candidates all over the country (me). You can post and retweet and write and share all you want but if you really want to do something, join a blue army that needs help-- register voters, donate, volunteer. Do something."

Lisa Brown is running for the seat held by Ryan lieutenant Cathy McMorris Rodgers in the sprawling, mostly rural eastern Washington district that includes Spokane. Her race looks good but she warns that "At the same time, Democrats should not be complacent. In community meetings people applaud when I commit to putting 'country over party' and eastern  Washington’s interests over special interests. My sense is that people are not looking for someone who agrees with them on every issue, but want authenticity and independence from the 'pay to play' system of determining Congressional priorities."


UPDATE: Tennessee

Tennessee is just as impossibly red as Alabama-- R+14. But a new survey from PPP shows former Governor Phil Bredesen, a conservative Democrat, edging out crazy far right fanatic Marsha Blackburn in the Senate race-- 46% to 41%. Tsunamis are powerful and, once they take hold, unstoppable.

Live By The Poll, Die By The Poll-- The Wave Is Coming Anyway. Look What Happened In Florida Tonight!

No one knows how to dampen down voter enthusiasm as well as corporate Democrats

Lately I've found myself spending an hour or two a day hand-holding long-shot candidates in R+15 districts who are freaking out because the Democratic advantage in polling pitting a generic Democrat against a generic Republican has taken a dip. First of all, that Democratic advantage primarily has to do with the Democratic enthusiasm level inside the Democratic base plus the swing away from Republicans among independents and the lack of enthusiasm among Republicans. As real life voters get to see the shitty Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who the DCCC has recruited, base enthusiasm starts to collapse and the congressional races turn into the only field the DCCC ever plays on: "we're the lesser of two evils-- we may be bad but just look at the Republican!" (Besides, districts with PVIs above R+10... well the wave would have to be the biggest electoral wave in the history of electoral waves.)

The DCCC staff, steeped entirely in Rahm Emanuel's and Steve Israel's tragically failed strategies, recruits candidates the base can't possibly be enthusiastic about, like the lite-weight Qualcomm heiress from Brooklyn for San Diego or the "ex"-Republican lottery winner from coastal Orange County pretending to have moved into an inland district to run. Even in districts where Bernie beat Hillary and got more primary votes than Trump, the DCCC thinks recruiting horrendous reactionary corporate candidates is the way to go-- what fools they are! And will always be... until Pelosi is gone and someone comes in and cleans house entirely of that den on iniquity.

Anyway... I wandered the course a little from talking about the generic polling. I don't always agree with Beltway prognosticator Stuart Rothenberg, but he hit a nail on the head Monday morning. He noted, as I have, that "a deeper look at polling shows a fairly consistent Democratic advantage."

Although various surveys report different results, the generic ballot probably now sits in the mid-single digits, in the 5- to 8-point range.

There was a point in mid-December when a series of polls showed Democrats with a big advantage in the generic ballot.

Consecutive polls released by Quinnipiac (+15 points, +12 points), CNN (+18 points), NBC News/Wall Street Journal (+11 points), PPP (+11 points) and Marist (+13 points) showed Democrats with a double-digit lead on the question.

For those using those polls has a starting point, the generic has tightened.

But the evidence is more complicated, and the warnings of the Democrats’ weakening position overblown.

There were 15 polls conducted between early December and early February that showed a double-digit advantage for Democrats-- almost half of them, seven, came from Quinnipiac.

Just as important, they have almost always showed a much larger Democratic advantage than other non-partisan surveys:

• Quinnipiac Univ., Nov. 29-Dec. 4, 2017 Democrats +14
• Quinnipiac Univ., Dec. 6-11, 2017 Democrats +12
• Quinnipiac Univ., Dec. 12-18, 2017 Democrats +15
• Quinnipiac Univ., Jan. 5-9, 2018 Democrats +17
• Quinnipiac Univ., Jan. 12-16, 2018 Democrats +11
• Quinnipiac Univ., Jan. 19-23, 2018 Democrats +13
• Quinnipiac Univ., Feb. 2-5, 2018 Democrats +9

The February 2018 number certainly was down a few points, especially from early January. But given margins of error and the impact of news and short-term events on the public, the general direction of Quinnipiac’s polling is clear and consistent.

According to Quinnipiac, Democrats have had and continue to have a considerable advantage in the generic ballot (if the numbers accurately reflect the sentiments of registered voters, of course).

...Let’s look at the generic ballot questions in Economist/YouGov online surveys from late November to early February. Five additional surveys during that same period showed the same trend.

• The Economist/YouGov, Nov. 26-28, 2017 Democrats +6
• The Economist/YouGov, Dec. 10-12, 2017 Democrats +8
• The Economist/YouGov, Dec. 17-19, 2017 Democrats +9
• The Economist/YouGov, Jan. 8-9, 2018 Democrats +7
• The Economist/YouGov, Jan. 14-16, 2018 Democrats +6
• The Economist/YouGov, Jan. 28-30, 2018 Democrats +5
• The Economist/YouGov, Feb. 4-6, 2018 Democrats +6

No wild swings. No dramatic movement. Just a consistent mid-single digit/high single digit advantage.

The narrow range doesn’t prove that the numbers are correct, but at the least they raise questions about the “sky is falling” assessment.

Let’s compare the Economist/YouGov surveys to CNN’s, which asked the generic three times between October and January, a slightly earlier period that the other polls I’ve been discussing.

An October 12-15 CNN poll found the Democrats with a 16-point advantage in the generic (54 percent to 38 percent).

In mid-December, the Democrats’ advantage grew to 18 points (56 percent to 38 percent).

And in the most recent CNN poll (January 14-18), the Democratic advantage plunged to 5 points (49 percent to 44 percent).

Again, you can believe the Democrats’ position in the generic has absolutely cratered, or you can be skeptical-- as I am-- that the mid- to high-teens advantages accurately portrayed where the cycle was.

Finally, let me turn to my favorite survey over the years, the one from NBC News/Wall Street Journal.

An October 23-26 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had the Democrats with a 7-point generic ballot advantage.

In mid-December, that advantages spiked to 11 points. And in mid-January, it was back down to a modest 6 points.

Do those three surveys show movement, or, given that they all are well within the margin of error, is the difference just noise? I don’t think we can know for sure without looking at them in the larger context.

After examining all of the data on RealClearPolitics, including individual surveys from various organizations, I’m inclined to conclude that the Democrats’ advantage in the generic has generally been in the middle to upper single digits except, possibly, for a short-lived spike in mid-December.

I would not be surprised if we see another spike or two (in one direction or the other), but count me as skeptical that the sky is falling for Democrats.

The warnings that Democrats can’t take a wave for granted and don’t have the House locked up in November strike me as wise. It is still early.

But waves usually don’t develop until the midterm year, so the fact that the Democratic advantage isn’t in the double digits now is not especially important.

During 2005, the year before the Democratic midterm wave, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal generic ballot favored the Democrats by from 5 to 11 points.

In January 2006, the survey showed Democrats with a 9-point advantage.

In March, the party’s advantage grew to 13 points, but one month later, it fell to a mere 6 points (45 percent to 39 percent).

I expect that at that point some Democrats and many journalists were issuing dire warnings about the Democrats’ prospects.

As we know, the Democratic generic ballot advantage in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal jumped back up to double-digits in June 2006, and Democrats eventually won the House in November, with the last NBC News/Wall Street Journal general ballot showing a lead in the mid-teens.

...Democratic prospects of taking over the House are not measurably worse than they were a month or two ago. Indeed, there are plenty of reasons to believe that they are better and improving.

There have been several special elections in unlikely red districts since the generic polling caused so many feint-hearted Democrats to start drinking. A couple of weeks ago Mike Revis won a state legislative seat in Missouri in Jefferson County where Trump beat Hillary 65.1% to 29.8%. The state legislative district he won was so red that the Dems didn't even run a candidate in 2016. On February 6 there was a 30 point swing away from the Republicans towards Team Blue. Late last month, Democratic victories in two Wisconsin red district special elections scared the state Republican Party so badly that Scott Walker decided to not call any more special elections! Those are the numbers that mean a lot more than ups and down in generic ballot polling.

Meanwhile, Nate Cohn reported in last night's NY Times that important Republican advantages are fading even if the generic polls are moving in their direction. He wrote that "Slowly but surely, the considerable structural advantages-- like incumbency, geography and gerrymandering-- that give the Republicans a chance to survive a so-called wave election are fading, giving Democrats a clearer path to a House majority in November."

[F]our court rulings have softened or even torn up Republican gerrymanders in four big states: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and most recently Pennsylvania, where the state Supreme Court struck down the congressional map last month.

The decisions in Florida, North Carolina and Virginia have already cost the Republicans a net of three House seats while generally eroding their position elsewhere in those states, giving Democrats better opportunities in 2018.

It’s too early to have a good idea of how much Republicans might lose in Pennsylvania, but it is reasonable to expect that the new map will cost the party at least one seat and erode its position in several others. Gerrymandering is not the only reason Democrats are at a disadvantage. Republicans also have the advantage of incumbency, which, on average, allows members to run about seven percentage points ahead of the national party.

But Republicans have gradually been losing the advantages of incumbency as well, most obviously because of 34 recent retirements in Republican-held congressional districts.

Over all, the number of G.O.P. retirements in plausibly competitive districts isn’t extraordinarily high. But some of the Republican retirements have been especially damaging: longtime incumbents who have a tradition of running far ahead of the national party and dissuading strong challengers, like New Jersey’s Frank LoBiondo or Pennsylvania’s Charlie Dent. Their retirements could easily be the difference between a non-competitive race and a Democratic victory.

The Republican incumbency advantage has diminished in another way: Democratic recruitment and fund-raising. A strong Democratic recruit-- like a military veteran or an elected official-- can cut into that advantage, especially with strong fund-raising numbers.

...[S]trong Democratic recruiting in Trump Country has kept many traditional battlegrounds on the list, like Illinois’ 12th or Kentucky’s Sixth. The Democrats might have an easier time finding qualified and experienced recruits in white working-class districts in part because Democrats have a track record of winning there, and therefore a deeper bench, even if Mr. Trump won a particular district.

12 point swing in the heart of Vern Buchanan's congressional district as his son's campaign falls to pieces and Margaret Good wins with a stunning 12 point swing towards the Democrats. This means more FAR than any generic polling. Trump is dragging the Republican Party down history's sewer with him. These results came in half an hour before we published. Details on this race, in which outside Republican groups spent millions to save this crucial seat. Expect panic among Florida Republicans now. If they don't see the catastrophe headed their way, November is going to see a lot of GOP congressmembers jumping off roofs!  Congratulations, Margaret Good:

Which Fascist Will The GOP Nominate, Trump Or Cruz... Or Both?

Trump doesn't want to say who he's decided to make the next Vice President (Of the United States) just yet. But he's hinting it could be Texas neo-fascist Ted Cruz. On Laura Ingraham's fascist-oriented radio show last week, the primitive-minded Trump said "Well, I like like him. He’s backed everything I’ve said... Ted Cruz is now agreeing with me 100 percent." (Trump made it clear that two soon-to-be out-of-work Republicans, Rubio and Jeb, can forget about the VP job.) Trump must feel he's entitled to speculate about who he'll make VP because now that crackpot Dr. Ben's numbers are disintegrating-- largely going to Cruz-- he's so clearly out ahead that it's unlikely anyone will catch up with him before Iowa and New Hampshire, all those holidays between now and then, that he's got this thing sewn up.

The newest NBC News poll has Trump at 28%, up two points, while Dr. Ben has lost 8 points and is now at 18%, tied with Cruz, who has huge momentum, up 8 points from 10% to 18%. No one else really comes close. Rubio's at 11% and poor Jeb has sunk down to 4%. The rest of the Deep Bench is bunched up at the bottom of the scale, between zero, like Lindsey Graham, and 3%, like Crazy Carly and the loudmouth from Jersey. And on the right is today's brand new poll from Iowa.

Roll Call's resident elections hack, Stuart Rothenberg isn't worried that the GOP will really nominate Trump, guaranteeing Barry Goldwater-magnitude losses in Congress and statehouses everywhere outside of the former slave-holding states.

Yes, I find it more than a little odd that Republicans have such a favorable view of both Carson and Trump at this point in the race-- Carson had a 71 percent favorable rating and Trump a 69 percent favorable rating in a Nov. 4-8 ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted by Langer Research.

But Trump’s unfavorable rating is relatively high as well (29 percent, compared to 18 percent for Carson), and most Iowans have not started to firm up their decisions about who they will support when the caucuses actually roll around on Feb. 1, still more than two months away.

Just as important, let’s remember who won the last two Iowa caucuses: Santorum in 2012 and Huckabee in 2008. So even if Carson or, less likely, Trump were to finish first in Iowa, it would not necessarily mean he was headed to Cleveland to be the GOP nominee. Remember, Ronald Reagan lost the Iowa Republican caucuses in 1980.

As we all know, 25 percent of the vote can win the Iowa caucuses, but the eventual nominee will need to rally at least half of Republicans around his or her candidacy.

...[I]t is still more likely than not that when Republican caucus-goers really get down to picking a candidate, Trump’s increasingly outlandish comments will make him look less presidential and less appealing.

And then what? Trump has already mowed down Perry, Walker, Jindal, Christie, Kasich and the Jebster-- though the last three are staying the the race zombie-style-- and is working on destroying Rubio-- who is busy fighting a losing what against Cruz-- next. So what's left if Republicans do come to their "senses?" Ted Cruz.

The GOP Is Actually CRAVING Another Goldwater-Magnitude Ass-Whooping-- And Ted Cruz Is Their Man

You think the Republican Party is a mad-house now? Just wait until Tailgunner Ted Is Their Nominee! I have to admit, I rarely read David Brooks columns and I usually get them second hand. This one from Tuesday came to me via an Ezra Klein post at Vox. Klein wrote that Brooks "accuses today's Republican Party of betraying the actual tenets of conservatism. 'By traditional definitions,' he writes, 'conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible.'" He wishes!

Today's Republicans, he continues, have abandoned all that. The GOP is increasingly driven by a faction that "regards the messy business of politics as soiled and impure. Compromise is corruption. Inconvenient facts are ignored. Countrymen with different views are regarded as aliens. Political identity became a sort of ethnic identity, and any compromise was regarded as a blood betrayal."

It's perhaps not a surprise that Brooks, a Burkean conservative, finds the party of Donald Trump and Ben Carson a bit objectionable. What's interesting is the precise nature of his diagnosis. Republicans, he says, have become prisoners of their own rhetoric:

Over the past 30 years, or at least since Rush Limbaugh came on the scene, the Republican rhetorical tone has grown ever more bombastic, hyperbolic and imbalanced. Public figures are prisoners of their own prose styles, and Republicans from Newt Gingrich through Ben Carson have become addicted to a crisis mentality. Civilization was always on the brink of collapse. Every setback, like the passage of Obamacare, became the ruination of the republic. Comparisons to Nazi Germany became a staple.

This produced a radical mind-set.

The result is a party that has convinced its voters that America needs a political revolution and is now surprised to find its voters turning to revolutionaries. "These insurgents are incompetent at governing and unwilling to be governed," Brooks says. "But they are not a spontaneous growth. It took a thousand small betrayals of conservatism to get to the dysfunction we see all around."

...Brooks's point is that you can't say, as Mitt Romney did, that "with Obamacare fully installed, government will come to control half the economy, and we will have effectively ceased to be a free enterprise society," and then turn around and tell your supporters that you've lost the election and it's time to accept that Obamacare is the law of the land. Either America is in an existential struggle to preserve its character, and radical means are merited, or … it's not. If you campaign based on an existential threat you can't govern as if it's just politics as usual.

But while Brooks sees today that Romney's comments paved the path toward Trump, at the time Brooks and others like him saw Romney as their best hope of taking back the White House. That's the core dynamic here: Establishment Republican candidates feel they have to use revolutionary rhetoric to win over the Tea Party, and since they face no sanction from the desperate moderates in their party when they pander to the right, it's an easy choice. Until that changes-- until players like Brooks are angrier at the center of their party for indulging these tendencies than they are at the fringe for taking advantage of the result-- the Republican Party is going to continue to get pulled far to the right.

If they are really as crazy as Brooks is coming to see them as-- and they are, after all, his people-- they'll nominate Trump or Ben Carson. More likely, though, it will come down to a battle between the Establishment (demented Cuban-American wing-nut, Florida teabagger Marco Rubio) and the fringe extremist (demented Cuban-American wing-nut, Texas neo-fascist Ted Cruz).

You've probably heard by now-- we've been writing about it all year-- that Likud/Mafia/China connection Sheldon Adelson is going to bankroll Rubio. Alex Isenstadt figured it out a couple days ago.

Sheldon Adelson, one of the Republican Party's most sought-after contributors, is leaning increasingly toward supporting Marco Rubio-- and the Florida senator is racing to win the backing of other uncommitted megadonors who have the potential to direct tens of millions of dollars his way and alter the contours of the Republican primary fight.

Last week, during a campaign swing through Las Vegas, Rubio held a meeting in Adelson's offices at the Venetian Las Vegas, one of a number of five-star luxury casinos the billionaire mogul owns around the world. Adelson, seated at the head of his conference table, heaped praise on Rubio’s performance while he discussed the dynamics of the 2016 race. Those briefed on the meeting described it as short but said it had an air of importance, with the two joined by Rubio’s campaign manager, Terry Sullivan, and a pair of senior Adelson advisers, Rob Goldstein and Patrick Dumont.

Those close to Adelson-- who spent more than $100 million on Republican candidates and causes during the 2012 campaign and has been aggressively courted by most would-be Republican nominees-- stressed that the 82-year-old gambling magnate had made no final decision on whom he’d support but said that momentum had strongly shifted to the Florida senator. A formal endorsement, they said, could come as soon as the end of the month-- and with it, the potential for a multimillion dollar contribution. With a net worth of $25.7 billion, according to Forbes, Adelson can afford to spend freely.

With the utter failure of Jeb Bush to connect with Republican voters, Rubio will be the younger face of the Ford/Dole/Bush/McCain/Romney wing of the party establishment. But it probably isn't their turn this cycle and even despite Adelson's vast wealth, Cruz is the more likely nominee (and, of course, he has his own billionaires in tow ready to pay for the ride. Stuart Rothenberg at Roll Call, one of Washington's most conventional pundits, wrote that with "the fissure in the Republican Party becoming wider and deeper," it's becoming increasingly apparent that Cruz will be the nominee.

It’s time to make the anti-establishment wing of the GOP put up or shut up.

For years, the most conservative elements of the party have complained about nominees such as Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney, seeing those Republican leaders as pragmatists who didn’t deeply hold conservative principles and weren’t worthy of the label “Republican.”

According to those conservatives, the GOP loses when “squishy” Republican nominees don’t offer voters a sharp contrast, and because of that, millions of conservative voters sit at home, unexcited with the choices offered.

Even the government shutdown of two years ago didn’t convince tea party conservatives in Congress that their strategy was unwise and backfired dramatically. After all, they now can note-- Republicans made additional House and Senate gains in 2014, even after all the media hysteria associated with the shutdown.

Of course, national polling from respectable pollsters showed substantial damage to the GOP brand during the shutdown, but the party was saved by the administration’s messy launch of its Obamacare website. It isn’t clear that Democratic ineptness will save Republicans from themselves a second time.

So, the GOP has been and remains a political party at war with itself. And because of that, the congressional wing of the party will remain paralyzed, with as few as a three or four dozen conservatives (sometimes many more) making it impossible for the party’s leadership to lead.

Cruz has been a cheerleader for those House Republicans who are most adamant in opposing compromise. Indeed, The New York Times noted that while Cruz “conceded defeat” when Congress voted to end the 16-day government shutdown, he did not “express contrition.”

...As a spokesman for the no compromise, anti-establishment wing of his party, Cruz would be the ideal presidential nominee for conservatives tired of Republican leaders. He could ask a like-minded governor, possibly Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, to join his ticket, giving voters the clear choice that conservatives claim they never have.

...[It is] likely that Cruz would underperform among swing voters and suffer additional Republican defections. His nomination would enable Democrats to make the election a referendum on him and the tea party, and it isn’t difficult to imagine 2016 becoming a modern day version of 1964, when Republicans suffered a humiliating defeat.

A Cruz nomination would virtually guarantee Democratic control of the Senate after November’s elections. GOP senators in states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and, of course, Illinois would have little chance of being re-elected, and the party’s prospects in a handful of other Senate races, (e.g., Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and even Arizona) would suddenly become more worrisome.

Given the relatively low number of truly competitive House districts, the GOP might well be able to retain control of the House, but even that is not certain.

So why should the GOP nominate Cruz if it entails so much risk? Because a clear and convincing defeat is the only thing in the foreseeable future that has any chance of convincing Freedom Caucus types in the Republican Party that their strategy is flawed and they have helped damage the Republican brand. (Alas, even a crushing defeat wouldn’t convince everyone.)

Until that happens, Republicans, and the country in general, seem destined to suffer through more months of legislative shutdowns and gridlock that will further weaken the country.

The Republicans do know that Pelosi's unwillingness to clean house at the DCCC, despite one humiliating loss after another, will leave the GOP majority there safe no matter how sweeping an electoral catastrophe and how powerful Cruz's reverse coattails turn out to be. They may lose a few seats around the edges, but with the endemic incompetence and corruption and the Rahm Emanuel-Chris Van Hollen-Steve Israel strategic overview still dominating DCCC thinking, virtually nothing the Republicans can do would lose them control of the House.

In 1964, when Barry Goldwater only carried his own state (Arizona) plus 5 bastions of hardcore racism and secession (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana), losing the electoral college 486 to 52, Republicans were lucky in the Senate to just lose Maryland, Montana and New York. They weren't so lucky in the House. Although the GOP gained a handful of seats for sociopathic racists in the Deep South, Republican incumbents were replaced by Democrats in seats in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa (5 seats!), Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey (4 seats), New York (7 seats), North Dakota, Ohio (4 seats, including Robert Taft's), Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington (4 seats), Wisconsin and even Wyoming! The Republicans went into the election with 176 House seats. After the dust cleared on election night, they only had 140 to the Democrats new majority of 295 (up 37 seats in all, despite all the Republican victories in Alabama). Almost 10 million more voters chose a Democrat for the House than a Republican, a swing of 4.7% in favor of the Democrats. At the time Michael Kirwan of Youngstown Ohio, a powerful progressive, was the DCCC chair. He was one of the last competent ones.