Want To Re-Fight The Wars Over Freedom Of Choice?

Kevin McCarthy is the Republican House Leader. But can he lead? A poll the other day from Morning Consult/Politico showed that 31% of Americans don't know who McCarthy even is; never heard of him. His twitter following (278K) is tiny compared to other national leaders-- Pelosi (2.52 million), Schumer (1.98 million), AOC (4.18 million), even the reviled McTurtle (875K)... He doesn't have much of a platform to influence public opinion, not on his own.

Many Republicans are applauding the extremist and punitive bills passing through Republican-controlled state legislatures that outlaw Choice and throw doctors in prison for life. McConnell is hiding in his turtle shell and refusing to comment until his team does some focus group-testing to find out what Kentucky voters think, but McCarthy has already spoken up-- and he's against the extremist bill. At a press conference Thursday, McCarthy decried the Alabama bill for not including exceptions for rape and incest saying that's "exactly what Republicans have voted on in this House. That's what our platform says... I believe in exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, and that's what I've voted on."

Even psychopath Pat Robertson said the Alabama bill is too extreme. If there are any Republicans who think these nutty bills coming out of Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, etc are going to help them reclaim suburban voters and women voters, they must be stupider than they look. So far you may have noticed that Trump is staying mum on this.Republicans up for reelection in statewide contests have run for the hills rather than answer whether they support the Alabama bill or oppose it. Martha McSally (R-AZ) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), refused to answer. Susan Collins (R-ME) called it extreme and said that the courts won't sustain it. "I’m not going to try to predict court cases, but I cannot imagine that that law won’t be overturned... Obviously it’s not something I would ever vote for." But most Republicans are on trickier grounds.

Of they say they oppose it, the anti-Choice extremists could turn on them and if they refuse to take a position or say they back it, independent voters and relatively moderate Republicans could be the ones turning on them. Oh... and not just Republicans. There are still a small handful of Democrats who arte anti-Choice. Blue Dog Dan Lipinski is one of them-- and Marie Newman is running against him, in part because of that. "Most of us," she reminded me today, "trust women. Full stop. Regardless of who you are, a Republican, a Democrat or an independent, 70% of this nation supports a right to choose. Taking away that right is stripping half of that population of their civil rights. This affects every American adversely and severely-- there is no other way to view this."

Bernie: "The abortion ban in Alabama is not about protecting life. It is about controlling women's bodies." Michigan state Rep Jon Hoadley is fighting one of this extremist anti-Choice bills in the state legislature. He's also running for Congress against anti-Choice freak Fred Upton. "Most voters trust women to make the best medical choices for themselves and their families," he told us this morning. "Abortion bans moving in numerous states, including Michigan, are out of line with the values  of the majority of voters who believe women should have the access, accurate medical information, and freedom to make the best decisions they can for their health and wellbeing. I trust women. I always have, and I always will."

This screws with the Republican Party intention of using their poisonous nonsense claims about live birth baby killing against Democratic candidates. Jeremy Peters' report for the NY Times yesterday, Republicans’ Messaging on Abortion Puts Democrats on the Defensive, completely missed the point. These bills flooding out of Republican-controlled legislatures, like the Alabama bill-- are far more likely to become salient among swing voters that the crap Peters wrote about: "With grisly claims that Democrats promote 'birth day abortions' and are 'the party of death,' the Republican Party and its conservative allies have aggressively reset the terms of one of the country’s most divisive and emotionally fraught debates, forcing Democrats to reassess how they should respond to attacks that portray the entire party as extremist on abortion. The unusually forceful, carefully coordinated campaign has created challenges that Democrats did not expect as they struggle to combat misinformation and thwart further efforts to undercut access to abortion." Hogwash! The only people who believe this crap are the few suckers left who don't understand what being a compulsive liar means. Or am I wrong?

Peters reports that "Much to the distress of abortion rights supporters, their own polling is showing that the right’s message is penetrating beyond the social conservatives who make up a large part of the Republican base. Surveys conducted for progressive groups in recent weeks found that more than half of Americans were aware of the 'infanticide' claims that President Trump and his party have started making when describing abortions that occur later in pregnancy." But who could possibly believe this bullshit, even if they are aware of it?

Initially, many Democrats and abortion rights groups believed the notion was so absurd that it was not worth responding to it. But they discovered that was a dangerous assumption to make in an information environment dominated by Mr. Trump.

“Sometimes there is a temptation to let the absurdity stand on its own, but we have to recognize that this is a different time,” said Dr. Leana Wen, the president of Planned Parenthood. “He’s deliberately conflating infanticide with abortion late in pregnancy. And it’s important that we as doctors and health care providers explain the extremely rare and devastating circumstances of abortion later in pregnancy.”

Mr. Trump is using the issue to rouse his base, including the crucial voting bloc of Christian conservatives for whom abortion is an overarching issue. His false statements that Democrats would “execute” newborn babies-- which he has repeated on his Twitter feed, during his State of the Union address and at campaign rallies, sometimes as he mimics swaddling a baby-- are being picked up and repeated by conservatives all over the country.

...Trump’s rhetoric has caught on in Congress and state legislatures, and with candidates running for office in states like North Carolina and Wisconsin, and it is drawing Democrats into a difficult debate over abortions that occur in the second and third trimesters, which make even some self-described pro-choice Americans uncomfortable.

What is new about Republican attacks is that they have presented the extremely rare circumstance of ending a far-along pregnancy-- terminations after 24 weeks comprise less than 1 percent of all abortions-- in a way that abortion rights groups say leaves a false but evocative impression: that women who are about to deliver a healthy baby are asking for and receiving abortions, and that Democrats support that.

The right is also vastly outspending Democrats on digital advertising on the issue, devoting hundreds of thousands of dollars so far this year on targeted Facebook campaigns that are reaching voters in battleground states.

An array of outside groups are involved. There are traditional anti-abortion organizations like the Susan B. Anthony List, which is advertising against Democrats who picked up Republican-held seats in the 2018 midterm elections. And there are newer players like Restoration PAC, which has been funded with large contributions from Dick Uihlein, a Midwestern businessman who often underwrites controversial candidates and causes.

One of Restoration PAC’s recent Facebook ads featured pictures of six Democratic senators who are running for president and attacked them as the “Party of Death” for their votes against legislation that would further regulate abortion in the later stages of pregnancy; the senators, like others who voted against it, said the legislation was unnecessary, containing redundant provisions to protect babies if they were born alive during an abortion.

“If nobody pushes back,” the ad said, “Life will not be cherished. Its destruction will be reclassified as a Planned Parenthood revenue source.”

Candidates, state Republican Parties and the National Republican Congressional Committee are also using the messaging. A Facebook ad from Dan Bishop, a Republican running for an open House seat in North Carolina, who won his party’s nomination in a primary race on Tuesday, said he was proud to have cast the deciding vote “to end infanticide in North Carolina.”

Abortion rights groups are not absent from the online advertising wars, but they are playing catch up in messaging and spending.

“They’re out there, but it’s always a disadvantage to be on the defense,” said Tara McGowan, chief executive of Acronym, a progressive firm that tracks online spending and messaging.

“There are just so many groups on the right running on this,” she added, “and further defining these issues on their terms while Democrats are left to react.”

As abortion rights supporters assess their current situation, many say they made an initial mistake by trying to answer questions based on implausible and often outright false premises.

A more persuasive way to talk about the issue, said Dr. Wen of Planned Parenthood, is to explain that abortions that occur far into pregnancy are not done on healthy mothers but because of serious medical complications discovered late in the pregnancy.

“These are families that have assembled a crib, picked out little clothes and put them into little drawers and had baby showers when they’ve received the most devastating news of their lives,” she said.

...An appearance by Senator Bernie Sanders on Fox News illustrated the difficulties Democrats have had in discussing the issue as Republicans have reframed the debate squarely on their turf. The moderator, Martha MacCallum, asked the senator, “Do you believe that a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy up until the moment of birth?”

Mr. Sanders responded, “I think it’s rare, it’s being made into a political issue, but at the end of the day I believe that the decision over abortion belongs to a woman and her physician, not the federal government, not the state government, and not the local government.”

His position was one that women’s groups have adopted for decades: That decisions about abortion are a woman’s personal choice. But that language is not useful when conservatives have made the conversation more extreme, said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster.

“The initial response from a lot of well-meaning politicians was one of two things,” Ms. Lake said. “It was the language around personal decision making and Roe v. Wade, or it was the language around late abortions. And that’s just not sufficient for addressing infanticide and abortion survival and these kinds of new frames.”

“Whoever sets the frame,” she continued, “wins the debate.”

The debate is still very much an open one. But it may come down to what Americans find more persuasive: the kind of nuanced explanation and argument abortion rights supporters are making, or a searing, one-word label like “infanticide.”

According to now-consistent polling, only a third of Americans find Trump truthful. Yesterday Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin sent an e-mail to her supporters talking about Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, Iowa, and now, Missouri. "What," she asked, "do they all have in common? These states have passed the most extreme anti-choice bills in this country-- outlawing abortion, punishing and controlling women, threatening doctors, and stripping health care away from millions. Let me be direct here: this is a coordinated effort by right-wing politicians and anti-choice groups to overturn Roe v. Wade. It's unconstitutional. It's unprecedented. And it makes me sick to my stomach.

They are going after women's health care in an attempt to get these laws challenged, struck down, and then appealed all the way to the Supreme Court-- where Brett Kavanaugh and others are chomping at the bit to topple Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion in this country.

We have all heard horror stories from the days of unsafe, back-alley procedures and needless deaths. We cannot go back to that. This war on women-- driven by the likes of Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump-- must be stopped. But that means we need to fight like our lives depend on it because they do.

...The hard truth is, if Republicans get their way, women will die. We cannot allow them to get away with these attacks and drag our country backward.

Politicians may think they know better than women and their doctors. The fact is, they don't. A woman deserves the freedom to make her own personal decisions about her health care, her family, and her body, without government interference.

Marqus Cole is the progressive Democrat running for Congress in Georgia's 7th district and he's been warning voters about far right extremists threatening women's Choice in Georgia since he declared his candidacy. Today he told us that "the face of Georgia's Anti-Choice movement is real and will soon be announcing her candidacy in the 7th district. The Republicans chose to use the heartbeat bill as a way to propel this state Senator onto a national stage. The celebratory picture is worth a thousand words."

Republican state Sen. Renee Unterman with anti-Choice cronies

"The 7th district has seen a massive demographic shift in recent years," he continued. "It has gone from a district won handily with a 70,000 vote margin in 2016 by the incumbent, Republican Rob Woodall, to a district where the house race was decided by 400 votes with Stacey Abrams winning handily by 1700+ in the gubernatorial race. The faces in the picture above are of opportunists hell bent on stripping women of their reproductive rights. They are not truly representative of Georgians. This picture shows why this upcoming election is so important. We are fighting for a government that is truly representative of the people it governs. We are fighting against extremists who want to take away the rights of women to make decisions about their bodies. We are fighting for the future of our country."

This morning, Elizabeth Warren demanded Congress pass federal laws to protect women's Choice from Republican men on the warpath against Choice. "Congress," she wrote, "should pass new federal laws that protect access to reproductive care from right-wing ideologues in the states. Federal laws that ensure real access to birth control and abortion care for all women. Federal laws that will stand no matter what the Supreme Court does. Here’s what that looks like:"

• Create federal, statutory rights that parallel the constitutional right in Roe v. Wade. The extremists behind proposals like the Alabama law don’t reflect public opinion in America. Polling data shows that 71% of Americans oppose overturning Roe--  including 52% of Republicans. Congress should do its job and protect their constituents from these efforts by establishing affirmative, statutory rights that parallel Roe vs. Wade. These rights would have at least two key components. First, they must prohibit states from interfering in the ability of a health care provider to provide medical care, including abortion services. Second, they must prohibit states from interfering in the ability of a patient to access medical care, including abortion services, from a provider that offers them.

Under the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution, federal law preempts state law. For this reason, the establishment of these federal statutory rights would invalidate contradictory state laws, such as the Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio bans. They would also end the political games being played by right-wing courts to try and narrow Roe’s protections. And because these federal protections would be valid on a variety of constitutional grounds--  including equal protection and the commerce clause--  they would ensure that choice would remain the law of the land even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe.

• Pass federal laws to preempt state efforts that functionally limit access to reproductive health care. States have passed countless Targeted Regulations on Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws, which are designed to functionally limit and eliminate women’s access to abortion care while not technically contravening Roe. Geographical, physical, and procedural restrictions and requirements. Restrictions on medication abortion. These kinds of restrictions are medically-unnecessary and exist for only one purpose: to functionally eliminate the ability of women to access abortion services. A bill already proposed in Congress, The Women’s Health Protection Act, would provide the mechanism to block these kinds of schemes concocted to deny women access to care. Congress should pass it.

• Guarantee reproductive health coverage as part of all health coverage. All women--  no matter where they live, where they’re from, how much money they make, or the color of their skin --  are entitled to access the high-quality, evidence-based reproductive health care that is envisioned by Roe. Making that a reality starts with repealing the Hyde Amendment, which blocks abortion coverage for women under federally funded health care programs like Medicaid, the VA, and the Indian Health Service. Congress should also expand culturally- and linguistically-appropriate services and information and include immigrant women in conversations about coverage and access. Congress must also pass the EACH Woman Act, which would also prohibit abortion restrictions on private insurance. And we should ensure that all future health coverage --  including Medicare for All--  includes contraception and abortion coverage.

• Ensure equal access and reproductive justice. Securing a federal right to Roe and ensuring that reproductive health care is available to every woman in America is just the beginning. We must undo the current Administration’s efforts to undermine women’s access to reproductive health care --  including ending Trump’s gag rule and fully support Title X family planning funding. We must crack down on violence at abortion clinics and ensure that women are not discriminated against at work or anywhere else for the choices they made about their bodies.

And these issues are bigger than Roe. The women of color who have championed the reproductive justice movement teach us that we must go beyond choice to ensure meaningful access for every woman in America--  not just the privileged and wealthy few. We must go beyond abortion, to ensure access to contraception, STI prevention and care, comprehensive sex education, care for pregnant moms, safe home and work environments, adequate wages, and so much more. We must build a future that protects the right of all women to have children, the right of all women to not have children, and the right to bring children up in a safe and healthy environment.

When I was growing up, long before Roe, people still got abortions. Some were lucky. Others weren’t. They all went through hell.

The overwhelming majority of Americans have no desire to return to the world before Roe v. Wade. And so the time to act is now. It’s inspiring to see so many women coming off the sidelines in this fight --  and women must continue to speak up to make sure this conversation stays grounded in their real experiences. Men must speak up too. And Americans outraged by these efforts should get into the political arena, run for office, and make these right-wing Republican lawmakers face the consequences of their actions.

Our democracy should not be held hostage by right-wing courts, and women should not have to hope that Brett Kavanaugh and Donald Trump’s Supreme Court will respect the law. Congress should act to ensure that the will of the people remains the law of the land.

Yesterday's Polls Today

Not sure what it refers to, but it looks good

The NY Times/Siena poll showed good news for one of the Blue America candidates. They had Katie Porter with a substantial lead over Trump rubber stamp Mimi Walters, 48% to 43%. Unfortunately, the Times/Siena poll is the least credible polling operation I've seen since Rasumussen and their data is virtually worthless. Still... the good news is that Porter is gaining ground on Walters. In fact, the FiveThirtyEight forecaster shows her with a 69.7% chance to win as opposed to Walters' 30.3% chance. You can support Katie Porter's grassroots efforts here-- as Ryan's toxic SuperPAC continues to smear her with tons of Adelson money.

PPP polled a couple of Texas congressional districts (TX-07, where Trump's net approval is minus 3, and TX-32, where Trump's net approval is down a stupendous minus 10) and found Colin Allred (D) leading Rep. Peter Sessions in the North Dallas area 47-42%, and Lizzie Fletcher (D) leading Rep. John Culberson in the west Houston area 47-45%.

Yesterday's most important and biggest polling dump came from Ipsos via Reuters. Michigan, for example, looks so good at the top of the ticket (governor and Senate) that the Democrats are talking about seriously putting more congressional seats into play. Democratic incumbent Senato Debbie Stabenow is leading Republican challenger John James by 20 points (which is not unexpected), while the open gubernatorial chair was expected to be closer than how its turning out. Gretchen Whitmer (D) is rolling over Trumpist state Attorney General Bill Schuette by 13 points.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have similar situations, while Ohio, which is more Republican-oriented, still shows Sherrod Brown way ahead (11 points) of self-funding multimillionaire Jim Renacci and the gubernatorial race a dead heat between Richard Cordray (D) and Mike DeWine (R). Brown has raised $23,165,903 while Renacci has struggled raising anything. He wrote himself a check for $4,000,000 to bring his total to just $6,190,352. The Republican Party has pretty much given up on him and there is no outside IE money coming in on his behalf. McConnell's SuperPAC, for example, spent $14,400 and the NRSC spent zero.

In Pennsylvania, incumbent Governor Tom Wolf (D) has a 17 point lead over Republican Scott Wagner and incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Casey is leading GOP Rep. Lou Barletta (another Trumpist) by a hefty 16 points. Again, the finances are very bad for the GOP. Casey has raised $18,280,829 to Barletta's $4,044,469 and there is no significant outside money in the race, indicating, again, that the GOP has given up on Barletta. The NRSC and McConnell's SuperPAC combined have spent a grand total of ZERO in Pennsylvania. This is going to be very good down-ticket of course and, in fact, another poll released yesterday (just NYTimes/Siena, unfortunately) shows Democrat Susan Wild leading Marty Nothstein (R) 50-42% in the open 7th district.

Wisconsin looks good too. Governor Scott Walker trails Democratic state schools superintendent Tony Evers by 7 points and Senate incumbent Tammy Baldwin (D) leads Republican Leah Vukmir by a healthy 52% to 39%. Baldwin has raised $22,616,357 to Vukmir's $2,002,657. So far Republican PACs have ignored Vukmir's plight and are not spending in the state. The other day Baldwin was down in WI-01 campaigning with Randy Bryce in Paul Ryan's old congressional district, where the Republicans have already poured in $1.8 million-- in a vicious personal smear campaign against Bryce, totally unanswered by the DCCC, which has never liked his independence or the fact that he's a working class guy who doesn't wear suits and had the temerity to show up at the DCCC building in work boots, frightening Dan Sena and Ben Ray Lujan, and has a grassroots following suspicious of the DCCC. (Please consider helping Randy keep up here.)

Among other Ipsos findings, polling in Indiana shows Senator Joe Donnelly (D) slightly ahead of Trumpist Mike Braun, 48% to 43% in a very red state. Donnelly has raised $11,495,629 to Braun's $8,258,437, most of which was used up in a vicious, expensive primary. As of the June 30 FEC reporting deadline, Donnelly had $6,391,931 on hand to Braun's $1,071,454. It's worth noting that Braun wrote himself several checks amounting to $6,241,377, but it is unclear if he will continue spending his own money, on a campaign that has not caught fire, at that rate now. Outside spending is intense. The DSCC has already spent $1,508,227, Schumer's PAC kicked in $9,057,627 and two other Democratic Party PACs have spent $1,937,089 and $1,913,433. McConnell's PAC has thrown in $3,937,662 but the NRSC has only put in $801,863 so far.

Ipsos also polled Arizona, where Blue Dog congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema leads Republican congresswoman Martha McSally 47-44% in a pure lesser-of-two-evils race. As of the August 8th FEC reporting deadline, Sinema had $2,468,252 on hand to McSally's $1,906,974. Outside spending dwarfs candidate spending. The Republicans have already spent $5,090,954 attacking Sinema (calling her a liberal, despite a voting record that shows she's nearly as conservative as McSally) and the DSCC has spent $418,499 while 3 other Democratic PACs have come after McSally with $2,397,413, $1,727,286 and $1,090,947 (Planned Parenthood).

The Ipsos polling shows Beto O'Rourke (D) leading Ted Cruz (R) in Texas within the margin of error-- 47% to 45% and Nevada's Republican Senate incumbent Dean Heller holding on against mulltimillionaire conservative Democrat Jack Rosen with 46% to her 43% (also within the margin of error. Rosen has refused to put any of her own substantial fortune into the race and Heller has outraised her $10,677,374 to $9,238,490. He has $5,874,814 left and she still has $3,828,593. Outside spending is gargantuan-- $10,093,116 attacking Heller and $5,423,033 attacking Rosen. The open seat Nevada gubernatorial race is also within the margin of error, Laxalt 43% and Sisolak 40%.

Other polls from yesterday includes one the L.A. Times released by USC that shows Democrats leading Republicans in a generic ballot test, 55% to 41%-- with likely voters disapproving of Trump’s overall performance in office by 57% to 39%. And then there was a late afternoon Quinnipiac poll of Florida, with really good news: as neo-fascist Ron DeSantis continues to fall apart, Andrew Gillum now leads him 54% to 45% among likely voters. How's that for some good tidings from the Sunshine State? Gillum continues to blanket the TV airwaves with ads but the more people see them, the more they dislike him.

And just for the fun of it, let me end today with a brief look at VA-07, the district where Tea Party extremist Dave Brat beat Eric Cantor. It looks like a former spy and current Blue Dog, Abigail Spanberger, could beat him. It's a district with a PVI of R+6, where Obama lost both times and where Trump beat Hillary 50.5% to 44.0%. Monmouth's poll shows Spanberger beating Brat 47-42% among registered voters who have voted at least once since 2010. Deep dive:

Spanberger holds a sizable advantage in the Richmond suburbs of Henrico County (58% to 30% for Brat) and Chesterfield County (50% to 35%)-- areas that supported Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 after voting for Mitt Romney in 2012. Brat holds a 57% to 35% lead over Spanberger in the remaining part of the district. This area, which runs from Culpeper to Nottoway County, actually gave Donald Trump a bigger margin of support in 2016 than it did for Romney four years earlier. Overall, voters in Virginia’s 7th district supported Romney for president by 11 points in 2012 and Trump by just over 6 points in 2016. Brat won re-election to his House seat by 15 points two years ago.

“This is a tale of two districts. The Richmond suburbs that backed Clinton in 2016 support Spanberger while the Trump strongholds are firmly behind Brat. The reason this race is so close right now is because there are more voters in the suburban areas,” said Murray.

Brat holds a very large lead over Spanberger among white voters without a college degree (61% to 31%). This is offset by Spanberger’s advantage among college educated white voters (52% to 42%) and non-white voters regardless of education (68% to 9%). Just over half of all voters (56%) have a lot of interest in the election, which includes 63% of Spanberger supporters and 62% of Brat supporters.

The district is currently divided on which party they want in charge of Congress, with 39% of VA-07 voters saying they prefer to see GOP control and 37% saying they want the Democrats to take over. Another 20% say that party control of Congress does not matter to them. Spanberger does better than Brat in winning over partisan converts.  The poll finds that 83% of self-identified Republicans support Brat, but 13% say they will cross party lines to vote for Spanberger. The Democratic candidate, on the other hand, holds onto 91% of her fellow partisans while losing none to Brat.  Independent voters are divided at 45% for Spanberger and 36% for Brat.

“Some Republican voters who are lukewarm on Brat feel comfortable enough with Spanberger to give her their support, at least for now,” said Murray.

Spanberger, a former CIA officer, gets a positive rating of 43% favorable and 19% unfavorable from VA-07 voters, with 39% having no opinion. Views of Brat are more mixed at 35% favorable and 27% unfavorable, with 37% having no opinion. The incumbent entered Congress after upsetting former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the 2014 Republican primary.

Overall, 47% of VA-07 voters approve of the job Trump is doing as president while a similar 46% disapprove, although those who strongly disapprove (40%) slightly outnumber those who strongly approve (33%). The poll finds that 61% of potential voters say it is very important for them to cast a vote for Congress that shows how they feel about the president-- with Trump opponents (70%) being somewhat more likely than Trump supporters (64%) to feel this way.

Currently, 27% of voters say Brat has been too supportive of the president, while 39% say he has offered the right amount of support and 8% say he has not been supportive enough. Another 26% have no opinion. As a point of comparison, a similar number of voters (25%) worry that Spanberger will be too supportive of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi if she is elected to Congress, while 40% say she will offer the right amount of support and 9% say she will offer too little support. Another 26% have no opinion.

When asked to choose the top issue in their vote for Congress from a list of six policy areas, 30% of VA-07 voters pick health care. This is followed by immigration (17%), gun control (13%), tax policy (13%), job creation (12%), and abortion (7%).  Voters are divided on whether they approve (42%) or disapprove (39%) of the tax reform plan passed by Congress last year.

Spanberger has a slight advantage on handling voters’ top concern of health care, with 37% saying they trust the Democrat more to keep health care affordable compared to 32% who say they trust Brat more on this issue. Another 18% say they trust both candidates equally. On handling the issue of illegal immigration, 36% say they trust Brat more, 34% say they trust Spanberger more, and 18% say they trust both candidates equally.

Going Down by Nancy Ohanian

Republicans Not Even Campaigning For Independent Voters Anymore-- For Them, It's All About Their Crackpot Base Now

GOP base strategy works with hardcore Republican voters, but not with normal people

This morning when Trump tried bragging about his magnificence, the UN General Assembly burst out in sustained, audible laughter. No, Señor T, you're not in Kansas anymore. (Ironically, even Kansas may not be Kansas anymore.)

Ugly monkey: "In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country."

World Leaders: laughter.

Ugly monkey: "It's so true."

World Leaders: more laughter.

Ugly monkey: "I didn't expect that reaction, but that's okay," smirking as though waiting for someone to feed him a banana-- or hand him a submachine gun.

Republican Party strategists have come to realize that appealing to independent voters this year is a rabbit hole for their candidates and they are now doubling down on getting out their own base and virtually ceding the independents-- as much as a third of the vote in many places-- to the Democrats. Our election coverage here at DWT has centered on independents ability to decide the midterms. GOP strategy is to now run such vile negative advertising as to just discourage independents from voting, not to get them to vote for Republican candidates.

At Axios Monday morning, Caitlin Owens outlined a Republican strategy to save hardcore red districts and basically abandon all swing districts. "With the midterm elections fast approaching and Democrats riding a clear advantage on health care, many Republicans are nevertheless doubling down on largely unpopular ideas like repealing the Affordable Care Act and cutting Medicare," she wrote."This strategy may seem counterintuitive on its face. However, it likely reveals that the party has all but abandoned independent voters this year and instead is focused on turning out its base. Republican leaders have recently become more public about the likelihood of trying again on ACA repeal, whereas a few months ago it was largely a private assumption among the party.

• Vice President Mike Pence told reporters in Wisconsin that if the GOP candidate wins the Senate seat there, the effort will be revived, per The Hill. “We made an effort to fully repeal and replace ObamaCare and we'll continue, with Leah Vukmir in the Senate, we'll continue to go back to that," he said.
• “We need to win this election and then get more seats next year" before trying again, GOP Whip Steve Scalise told the AP.

Is that a good idea in Wisconsin, a state where independents decide elections? It may be a good strategy for Mississippi but there isn't a single poll-- including partisan Republican polls that no one takes seriously-- that shows Vukmir with a pathway to victory. FiveThirtyEight gives her a 1 in 40 chance to beat progressive Democratic incumbent Tammy Baldwin (in a state Trump won-- albeit narrowly and with Kremlin help-- in 2016.

As Owens explained, "ACA repeal only resonates well with one group of voters: registered Republicans. 'It’s all about the base, because as far as I can tell, they’ve lost the independents, there’s no one left to woo,' said conservative economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former campaign aide to John McCain. 'The Republicans face a very odd problem…when you ask actually registered voters what they want to do with the future of the ACA, no one wants to repeal and replace it except the Republicans, which the majority do,' said Robert Blendon of Harvard's School of Public Health. 'If you are looking at the aggregate, you can't imagine why you’d even mention it. But if you’re trying to encourage your own voters… then they're trying to say that we would come back and try to do something,' Blendon added."

Worse yet for the GOP's election hopes among normal voters, the Trump Regime is now talking about cuts to Social Security and Medicare again. Owens reminds us that Trumpanzee's top economic advisor, drug addict and crackpot TV personality Larry Kudlow, "recently said that the administration will probably look at entitlement cuts next year." She brought up 3 very vulnerable Republican incumbents-- in districts with huge numbers of independent voters-- who are going along with Kudlow and Trump are likely to lose their seats because of it. John Faso, for example, was keeping his seat in play. It is now starting to trend, ever so slightly, towards Anthony Delgado. Faso is making noises that will make independents (and seniors) see him as a threat to Social Security and Medicare. Fine for the GOP base-- but NY-19 is not some backward rural district in Oklahoma or Alabama. The PVI is supposedly a deceptive R+2 but Obama won it both times he ran and it was only Hillary's lousy campaign and flaws as a candidate that gave Trump his win there (50.8% to 44.0%).

Peter Roskam is another one the need to rein in spending on entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. That's a bad idea in Chicagoland. IL-06 gave Obama a win over McCain, Romney a win over Obama and Hillary a 7 point win over Trump (50.2% to 43.2%). The PVI is also a deceptive R+2. The Democratic candidate, Sean Casten, isn't especially strong but it's a neck-and-neck race that Roskam's to lose by talking about cutting Social Security and Medicare.

Very similar story in Texas' 7th district (Houston), where the Democrats nominated a weak candidate, Lizzie Fletcher, but where Hillary narrowly edged Trump (48.5% to 47.1%). Incumbent John Culberson is a poor campaigner. Fletcher has outraised him, $2,312,615 to $2,007,183 and he will be committing political suicide if he embraces-- as he appears to be doing-- an all base strategy. Fletcher isn't capable of winning this race; Culberson is very capable of losing it.

Again, Owens explained the risk to Republicans like Culberson: Although the bet is that the GOP base is concerned with deficits, "as soon as the other side switches to 'you're going to cut back Medicare and Social Security,' you're on the wrong side," Blendon said. "The highest turnout rates are among people above 60." Like clockwork, the DNC blasted out an email criticizing Kudlow's comments, saying that he "admitted that Republicans will try to cut vital programs relied upon by millions of working families."

More Women In Congress Isn't Just A "Nice" Thing-- It's CRUCIAL For This Country's Success

Two of the most important Senate races this cycle pit women against each other. One of the Senate's most progressive Democrats, a courageous reformer with a fantastic voting record that spans a career as a state legislator, a congresswoman and more recently as a senator, Tammy Baldwin, is up against a conservative Republican, Leah Vukmir, in Wisconsin. My lens on this race frames an outspoken progressive against a Trump-enabling reactionary. The woman-thing is removed as an identity politics factor. Another identity politics factor may or may not be in play: Tammy has always been upfront about being a lesbian.

Over in Arizona, there are also two women competing, both congressmembers looking to ascend to the Senate. Kyrsten Sinema is running as a Democrat, although she votes more with the Republicans than anyone would ever expect from a Democrat. She is the head of the Blue Dogs and has the single worst voting record of any Democrat in the House. You think Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly and Heidi Heitkamp are bad? Just wait 'til this monstrosity is in the Senate. Her opponent, a mainstream conservative Republican, Martha McSally, is worse. Again the identity politics factor is removed and again there's a wiggle here because Sinema self-identifies as LGBT.

Without the "women thing" as a determinant for identity politics voters, it might make for a race where voting records-- readily available-- become more meaningful than anatomy, not a bad thing. The Senate needs more women members and I didn't pick the word "needs" randomly. I want to tell you why I chose that word. At worked at a company a long time ago where senior management would meet once a week for house and hours and hours. There were no women-- and eventually there was one woman-- and it was, among other things, dysfunctional and not in the best interests of the company. Forget about anything like "fairness" for a moment. Senior management of a company cannot make good decisions-- CANNOT-- without diversity. Without diversity you fail-- that simple. This is not a "bleeding heart" observation. Quite the contrary. There have been lots of studies that have shown how important diversity is in decision making. Companies need to take it serious and eventually mine did, which gave them an enormous advantage of our competitors who were more male-dominated. This Forbes article from last year, New Research: Diversity + Inclusion = Better Decision Making At Work, explains that "inclusive teams make better business decisions up to 87% of the time" and why "decisions made and executed by diverse teams delivered 60% better results." Believe me, that isn't just true in business.

This week, NBC reported that 100 women may be elected to the House in November-- with a very disturbing caveat: "the wave is being driven entirely by Democrats; on the GOP side, the number of women serving in office is expected to dip.

Keep in mind that there are plenty of woman v women races in the House, just like the two I mentioned in the Senate above. In Washington state, for example, an outstanding progressive leader, Lisa Brown, is facing off against a Trump/Ryan puppet in Spokane, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the top-ranked woman in the GOP leadership. (Her Trump affinity rating is a startling 97.8% of the time!)

NBC makes the point that if the 100 women are elected in the House, it will "put more new women in the House than in any prior election." That's a positive good for many reasons-- but especially for the country.

Between 30 and 40 new women are poised to enter the House next January, shattering the previous record of 24 set in 1992's "Year of the Woman." And much as pundits interpreted 1992's wave as a backlash against Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation, 2018 is now clearly a backlash to President Donald Trump's election.

Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton didn't just launch the Women's March; it set off an avalanche of Democratic women running for Congress, many of them first-time candidates, ranging from former Navy helicopter pilots to former CIA officers. Of the 254 non-incumbent Democratic nominees for the House, an unheard-of 50 percent are women, compared to 18 percent of Republicans.

Currently, there are 61 female Democrats and 23 female Republicans serving in the House. But after November, Democrats could expand their ranks of women by more than a third. Meanwhile, the GOP's ranks could shrink by up to a third.

Democratic primary voters have made clear they feel the best way to send a message to Trump is to send a woman to Congress: In Democratic House primaries featuring at least one man, one woman and no incumbent on the ballot, a female candidate has won 69 percent of the time. In the same situations on the GOP side, a female candidate has won just 35 percent of the time.

Keep in mind, not every woman candidate is any good. Some are more like Kyrtsen Sinema than like Tammy Baldwin, BUT... in races that pit women against Republicans? There's no contest. Even the worst, most reactionary female Democrats running for House seats-- say, Kathy Manning in North Carolina, Gretchen Driskell in Michigan, Ann Kirkpatrick in Arizona, Elaine Luria in Virginia-- are absolutely better choices than their Republican opponents (male or female).

Let me go back to the Senate races for one second, actually just this one in Tennessee which pits a woman against a man. The man is a fairly conservative, though not dogmatic, former governor, Phil Bredesen (D). The woman is an extreme right fanatic, very dogmatic, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R). She's currently one of the worst members on Congress-- absolutely dreadful by every possible metric. On top of that, she's one of Trump's top picks for the Senate anywhere in the country and is running a campaign that explicitly vows to protect him from impeachment. You going to vote for the woman candidate against the male in this instance?

Wisconsin U.S. Senate Race: Those Who Know Kevin Nicholson Best...

About half a year ago, many Americans-- including many Wisconsinites-- met Kevin Nicholson for the first time. He popped up, seemingly out of nowhere, to try to grab the GOP nomination to run against Senator Tammy Baldwin. At the time, I noted that "not many voters in Wisconsin know who Nicholson is but, like Paul Ryan 2 decades ago, he appears to be a readymade, prefab candidate invented to carry a right-wing message: 'With his Hollywood looks, military pedigree, Ivy League smarts and private-sector proficiency, Nicholson could have been built in a GOP laboratory.' The same GOP laboratory that turned out Ryan. Never mind that he's never won a vote for anything before (other than when he ran for president of the College Democrats of America), with Ryan's sheen irrepairably tarnished, the Uihleins and other behind-the-cutain Republicans see Nicholson as an eventual presidential contender. 'He is, for comparison’s sake, a wealthier, better-looking and more charming version of Senator Tom Cotton. Kevin is even more impressive in person than he is on paper,' gushes David McIntosh, the former [very, very, very far right] congressman and Club for Growth president." Nicholson was a DNC hack and spoke, boringly, at the Democratic Convention-- touting his commitment to abortion and Al Gore. He was a typically clueless, anti-progressive conservaDem in the mold of garbage like Joe Lieberman. He 'felt fundamentally betrayed by modern liberalism and went searching for something else,' emerging in the GOP as a right-wing nut. Plenty of offal-eating Blue Dogs have done the same thing over the years.

Others have noted that "Nicholson has wanted to be president since he was a teenager and has few core convictions; that he saw the demographic winds shift during his time in D.C. and decided the clearest path to public office as a straight, white man in Wisconsin would be as a Republican."

Nicholson was embarrassed a couple of weeks ago when his parents maxed-out to Baldwin's campaign. Donna and Michael Nicholson each contributed $2,700, the legal maximum. (Donna Nicholson has also contributed to Randy Bryce's campaign to beat Paul Ryan this year.)

This week it has come to light that Nicholson's brother, Scott, has also maxed out to Baldwin, $2,700 on December 31.

Kevin Nicholson is a total slickster and he's tried to turn his family's stunning rejection of his political ambitions into a plus by putting out a press release saying "I’m a conservative today not because I was born one, but because of the experience I earned as a Marine in combat, my experience as a husband and father, my choice to be a Christian, the schools I chose to attend and the decision to pursue the career that I have." The most recent primary polling in Wisconsin shows Nicholson crushing Republicans Leah Vukmir and John Schiess. Vukmir is generally being backed by the state party establishment, while Nicholson is backed by national extremists like Steve Bannon, John Bolton, Ted Cruz, Club for Growth and FreedomWorks. Blue America hasn't endorsed many Senbate candidates but Tammy Baldwin is one of them. If you'd like to contribute to her campaign-- and help Nicholson's family keep him out of the Senate-- just tap the thermometer on the right.

Pelosi's 180-- She's Now What Gephardt Was When She Took Over The House Leadership-- Head Of The Republican Wing Of The Party

So far, the senators who have signed on as cosponsors to Bernie's Medicare-For-All bill are Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tom Udall (D-NM), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Al Franken (D-MN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)-- 15, so, with Bernie, that's 16 out of the 48 Democrats in the Senate. Bernie will make his formal announcement at 2pm (ET)-- in one hour. You can watch it live-streamed here.

According to a poll by the Pew Research Center earlier this summer, support for "single payer" health care has continued growing, driven largely by efforts by Democrats. 60% of Americans agree that "it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage" while just 39% say this is not the government’s responsibility.

Among those who see a government responsibility to provide health coverage for all, more now say it should be provided through a single health insurance system run by the government, rather than through a mix of private companies and government programs. Overall, 33% of the public now favors such a “single payer” approach to health insurance, up 5 percentage points since January and 12 points since 2014. Democrats-- especially liberal Democrats-- are much more supportive of this approach than they were even at the start of this year.

...The issue of the government’s responsibility in ensuring health coverage remains deeply divisive politically, according to the new survey, conducted June 8-18 among 2,504 adults. More than eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (85%) say that this responsibility falls to the federal government, while about two-thirds of Republicans and Republican leaners (68%) say it does not.

Still, most Republicans (57%) say the government “should continue programs like Medicare and Medicaid for seniors and the very poor.” Just 9% of Republicans say the government should not be involved in providing health insurance at all.

Among Democrats, 52% now say health insurance should be provided through a single national insurance system run by the government, while fewer (31%) say it should be provided through a mix of private companies and government programs. The share of Democrats supporting a single national program to provide health insurance has increased 9 percentage points since January and 19 points since 2014.

Nearly two-thirds of liberal Democrats (64%) now support a single-payer health insurance system, up 13 percentage points since January. Conservative and moderate Democrats remain about evenly divided: 38% prefer that health insurance continue to be provided by a mix of private insurance companies and government programs, while 42% favor a single-payer approach.

Overall, support for a single-payer health insurance system is much greater among younger adults than older people. Two-thirds of adults younger than 30 (67%) say the government has a responsibility to provide health coverage for all, with 45% saying coverage should be provided through a single national program.

Tuesday, Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat running for reelection next year in Wisconsin, a state Trump won, wrote an OpEd in the state's #1 newspaper, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Why I support Medicare for all and other efforts to expand health coverage. "When it comes to providing affordable health care for every American," she wrote, "there is more we must do right now to change the status quo, improve our health care system and lower costs. That is why I have introduced bipartisan legislation with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the FAIR Drug Pricing Act, to take on sky-high prescription drug costs by holding drug companies accountable for price hikes. I also am working across party lines on bipartisan solutions to stabilize the insurance marketplace, reduce families’ health costs and get more people covered. We must act now to stabilize and strengthen the individual market to help Americans buy insurance at more affordable prices for 2018."

Before the Affordable Care Act, families weren’t protected against being denied coverage or charged more because of a past illness. Today, insurance companies can no longer discriminate against someone based on their pre-existing condition. I championed the health reform that allows young people to stay on their parents’ insurance plans up to age 26. These reforms have led to millions more Americans having the health insurance they need. We have made great progress in making things better.

However, we have more work to do, and Washington has been consumed by a debate this year over partisan attempts to make things worse.

Congressional Republicans have offered a number of repeal plans that would increase the number of people who are uninsured and force many families to pay more for less care.

The people of Wisconsin did not send me to Washington to take people’s health care away, so I fought against these repeal plans. Instead of making things worse, I believe we should move forward to expand coverage and make health care more affordable, not more costly.

Every American should have affordable health coverage, and there is more we can do to make that a reality. I always have believed that our goal must be universal health care coverage for everyone, and my support for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All legislation being introduced this week is a statement of that belief.

With this reform, we would simplify a complicated system for families and reduce administrative costs for businesses. It would expand coverage to all the uninsured, make health care more affordable for working, middle-class families and reduce growing prescription drug costs for taxpayers.

This reform will help us achieve universal coverage for everyone and is one of many paths we can take to expand coverage and lower health care costs. Last month, I helped introduce the Medicare at 55 Act, which would provide an option for people between the ages of 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare. I am working with Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) to soon introduce legislation to allow states to offer people a choice to buy into the Medicaid program. This would grant more Wisconsinites the opportunity to enroll in our popular BadgerCare program. And Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is working on a reform that would provide all Americans, individuals and companies with a public option to purchase Medicare.

What all of these proposals have in common is a commitment to the belief that every American deserves affordable health coverage. If both parties look past the partisan debate in Washington, we can find common ground today on solutions that work for the American people.

It is time to move forward.

Forward toward the day when we make good on the guarantee of high quality, affordable health care coverage for every American. That is a goal worth reaching, and, as Americans, we shouldn’t let anyone tell us we can’t.

Pelosi, on the other hands, continues to crap on her own legacy and once again, feels compelled to take the side of the reactionaries and conservatives in her dysfunctional caucus. She's running around like a chicken without a head muttering about how single payer healthcare is not a litmus test. Funny, her DCCC seems to be using it as a reverse litmus test as they continue recruiting Blue Dogs, "ex"-Republicans, self-funding multimillionaires and lottery winners who are 100% out of touch with the energy of the Democratic base.

I often sit and talk with tepid progressives who want to back Medicare-For-All but are afraid their districts' voters won't understand it or support it. Life's a bitch and explaining it and persuading them to understand it is part of a political leader's job. It's worth the effort. But some Democratic politicians want nothing to do with it at all... conservatives who will work with the Republicans to kill it, the way Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor and Max Baucus-- none of whom are in public office any longer-- worked so hard to kill the public option. Pelosi and Hoyer have refused to co-sponsor Medicare-For-All, nor have most of the conservative shitheads in the Democratic Caucus, like Schumer's two horrid Senate picks, Blue Dog Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Jacky Rosen (NV). Pelosi's anti-single payer position is, according to The Post "the latest evidence that Democrats in the House are willing to ignore pressure from liberal factions aiming to drive the party further to the left." The "liberal factions," I suppose, are the 117 House Dems who have already signed on as co-sponsors to John Conyers' H.R. 676-- including conservative allies of Pelosi's like Joe Crowley (New Dem-NY), Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA), Darren Soto (New Dem-FL), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Luis Correa (Blue Dog-CA) and Gene Green (TX).

“I don’t think it’s a litmus test,” Pelosi said in an interview. “What we want is to have as many people as possible, everybody, covered, and I think that’s something that we all embrace.”

Pelosi said that she would like a variety of health-care ideas to be vetted and analyzed by budget scorekeepers but that she thinks none of them will succeed while the ACA is under attack from Republicans.

“Right now I’m protecting the Affordable Care Act,” Pelosi said. “None of these things, whether it’s Bernie’s or others, can really prevail unless we protect the Affordable Care Act.”

Some liberal factions of the Democratic Party have complained in recent months that Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the two most powerful elected Democrats in Washington, have been unwilling to listen to demands from the progressive base. Many were angry last week after Pelosi and Schumer struck a deal with President Trump to increase the federal borrowing limit and extend current spending levels through December.

Progressives such as Reps. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) and Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) said the Democratic base is not interested in working with Trump. Instead, they want action on key agenda items such as securing legal protections for those immigrants who benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which Trump began winding down last week.

“Our base is deeply alienated from this president,” Connolly said in an interview with the Washington Post. “Our base is not saying, ‘Work with him, try to find some common ground.’”

...“Fortunately, I’m a progressive from San Francisco. I’m a liberal, and I have my own credibility on these subjects,” Pelosi said. “While we all share our values and priorities and the rest, I think Chuck [Schumer] and I are both strong Democrats.”

Both Democratic leaders have said they think it is their job to work with Trump where possible to pass legislation that meets the values of the party. Pelosi said it is her job to get bills passed.

“You can never satisfy everybody,” Pelosi said. “We don’t have a responsibility to get nothing done.”

Several political organizations supportive of Sanders have said voters should reject any Democrats who do not support “Medicare for All.” Nina Turner, who now leads Sanders’s Our Revolution group, told Politico this summer that there was “something wrong” with Democrats who did not endorse it. The People for Bernie, a group that grew out of the Occupy Wall Street movement, started the week by urging progressives to call Democrats and demand that they endorse Sanders’s bill.

Yesterday we asked a dozen Democratic House candidates to describe in one sentence what motivates their campaign. 8 of them used the words "single payer," "universal health care" or "Medicare-For-All" in their single sentence-- from Randy Bryce in Wisconsin ("I'm running for Congress to help raise everyone's standard of life; everyone is worthy of being healthy which is why Medicare-for-All is a top priority.") and Derrick Crowe in Texas ("We're fighting for liberty and justice for all-- and in practice that means tuition-free college, Medicare For All, real climate change action, a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and a pro-rural agenda that gets the Democrats back to their populist roots.") to Tim Canova in Florida ("I am campaigning to put basic human needs and human values ahead of unfettered corporate greed and profits and I'm proud to support a people's agenda: election integrity reforms to ensure transparency and accuracy in vote counting, Medicare For All, federal subsidies for K-12 and tuition-free higher education, a voluntary national service program modeled on New Deal public works programs...").

Wouldn't it be ironic if conservative Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) signs onto Medicare-For-All before Pelosi! It probably won't, but it could happen. When asked about Bernie's bill yesterday, Manchin said "It should be explored. I want to know what happens in all the countries that have it-- how well it works or the challenges they have."

The good old days

Alas, Pelosi, unbeknownst to herself, has slipped into the position Dick Gephardt was in when she wrested control of the party from him-- she is now the spokesperson for the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and is at odds and no longer in synch with the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. The House Democrats are endangering their chances to win back a majority next year by keeping her on as their Leader. She is one of the most detested and hated politicians in America and more than a few voters may hesitate-- Trump or no Trump-- to pull the lever for a Democratic candidate on election day for fear of making her Speaker.

And if you're wondering what the scumbag who has been sucking off Wall Street since the early 1980s when he was first elected to Congress-- and has taken more in bribes from the banksters than any other politician in history who hasn't run for president ($26,628,675 since 1990 when the figures began being compiled)-- has to say about Medicare-for-All... "Democrats believe that health care is a right for all, and there are many different bills out there," pointedly refusing to get behind Bernie's bill. How could he, when his two Senate recruits this year are corrupt corporate Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Jacky Rosen (NV)-- neither of whom supports anything normal Democrats support (except abortions and gays)? Schumer-- worst and most corrupt Democratic Senate Leader ever!

Bernie: "Do we, as a nation, join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee comprehensive health care to every person as a human right? Or do we maintain a system that is enormously expensive, wasteful and bureaucratic, and is designed to maximize profits for big insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, Wall Street and medical equipment suppliers? We remain the only major country on earth that allows chief executives and stockholders in the health care industry to get incredibly rich, while tens of millions of people suffer because they can’t get the health care they need. This is not what the United States should be about."

No, but it's what Chuck Schumer's career has always been all about. More Bernie: "The reason that our health care system is so outrageously expensive is that it is not designed to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way, but to provide huge profits to the medical-industrial complex. Layers of bureaucracy associated with the administration of hundreds of individual and complicated insurance plans is stunningly wasteful, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars a year. As the only major country not to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, we spend tens of billions more than we should... Now is the time for Congress to stand with the American people and take on the special interests that dominate health care in the United States. Now is the time to extend Medicare to everyone."