Election Reflections-- Blue Dogs, Schumer, Texas, Florida... You Want To Know What Went Wrong?

Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Joe Cunningham (SC) were elected to the House in the 2018 anti-red wave-- just when Blue Dog chairwoman Kyrsten Sinema graduated to the Senate. Sinema was the worst Democrat in Congress-- by far. She voted against anything and everything that smacked of progressivism. She voted with the GOP on progressive roll calls around 75% of the time. Now she's the worst Democrat in the Senate, although we'll soon see if Frackenlooper gives her a run for her money.

Back in the House, Brindisi and Cunningham spent the last two years see-sawing back and forth for the #1 and #2 worst Dems. Both are virulent Blue Dogs with ghastly voting records that could only be analyzed in one way: Republican. At the moment, Cunningham's record is slightly worse-- 76.54% against progressive initiatives, while Brindisi "only" voted against progressivism 75.31%. None the less, Pelosi and Bustos decided to waste $4 million trying to save Cunningham and $5.5 million trying to save Brindisi. Two of the GOP's best friends inside the Democratic caucus-- but especially Brindisi-- spent their time whining about how if anything progressive was brought to the floor for a vote it would doom their reelections.

Cunningham was defeated by Republican Nancy Mace (having out-spent her by $2 million) 216,042 (50.6%) to 210,627 (49.4%). It looked like Brindisi would be joining him in the losers' column-- and he still may-- but... yesterday Syracuse.com reported that Brindisi has surged back into contention, winning the absentee count 73-27% (25,998-7,787)... Brindisi has now cut Tenney’s lead to 10,294 votes, down from 28,422 votes on Election Day. There are at least 20,000 ballots remaining to be counted across the district. Brindisi will have to win at least 77% of those ballots to overtake Tenney." That's a steep hill to climb but it isn't impossible that Congress will be stuck with Brindisi and his whining for two more years.

Let's flip back to the Senate for a minute-- although the DCCC operates exactly like to DSCC-- and take a look at a post from July by Andrew Perez, with the benefit of hindsight-- Senate Democrats’ Machine Spent $15 Million To Destroy Progressive Primary Candidates. Short version: "The Democratic establishment has successfully blocked progressive Senate candidates in primaries, with the help of labor unions, Wall Street tycoons and corporate interests."

Now that the Schumer and the DSCC have managed to confound every pollster and lose the Senate again, it's worth looking at how they undermined every single progressive who tried to run-- spending $15 million in the process during the primaries. They hate progressives and fear them more than Republicans, who they have much more in common with.

While Schumer's DSCC hand-puppet, Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) promised last year that the DSCC would support progressive incumbent Ed Markey if he faced a primary challenger, they reneged entirely when he was challenged by a far less progressive Rep. Joe Kennedy III. Although a SuperPAC set up by Kennedy, the New Leadership PAC, spent $4,126,114 bolstering him, neither the DSCC nor Schumer's slimy Senate Majority PAC, spent a nickel helping Markey. Instead, they spent millions helping very right-wing Democrats like Frackenlooper to defeat progressive former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. "In the final weeks of the race," wrote Perez, "SMP spent $1 million to boost Hickenlooper, after he spent his failed presidential campaign attacking key tenets of progressives’ legislative agenda, including Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. At the time of the cash infusion, Hickenlooper was losing ground in the polls and engulfed in scandals: He had just been fined by Colorado’s Independent Ethics Commission for violating state ethics law as governor, the local CBS station uncovered evidence of his gubernatorial office raking in cash from oil companies, and a video circulated showed Hickenlooper comparing his job as a politician to a slave on a slave ship, being whipped by a scheduler."

The Schumer-controled SMP spent $228,490,266, "pooling cash from both organized labor and business titans to promote corporate-aligned candidates over more progressive primary challengers. Working for Working Americans, a super PAC funded by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, has donated $5 million. The Laborers' International Union of North America’s super PAC has given $1.5 million. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’s political action committee has chipped in $1.3 million. SMP has received also big donations from groups affiliated with labor unions like the Service Employees International Union ($1 million), the National Association of Letter Carriers ($750,000), and Communications Workers of America ($500,000). Overall, the top donor to SMP so far this cycle has been Democracy PAC-- a super PAC that’s bankrolled by billionaire George Soros and the Fund for Policy Reform, a nonprofit funded by Soros. Democracy PAC has contributed $8.5 million to SMP. Other donors from the financial industry include: Renaissance Technologies founder and billionaire Jim Simons and his wife Deborah ($5.5 million) and billionaire D. E. Shaw & Co. founder David Shaw ($1 million)."

Some major donors have financial stakes in current and future legislation.

For instance: SMP received a $1 million donation from billionaire Jonathan Gray, an executive at Blackstone, which owns the hospital staffing chain, TeamHealth. SMP also received $2 million from the Greater New York Hospital Association.

In late 2019, Schumer helped stall Senate legislation that would have kept patients from receiving “surprise medical bills,” the hefty charges that occur when they visit hospitals that are in their insurance network but are unknowingly treated by providers who are considered out-of-network.

SMP is affiliated with Majority Forward, a dark money group focused on attacking Republican Senate candidates. Majority Forward received $450,000 in 2018 from pharmacy giant CVS Health-- which also owns health insurer Aetna. The group also received $300,000 from the American Health Care Association (AHCA), a trade association that represents the nursing home industry.

The Democratic primary candidates backed by the DSCC have expressed reservations about Medicare for All, arguing they believe people should be allowed to keep their private health insurance if they want it. Many of the DSCC’s favored candidates do support creating a public health insurance option.

Meanwhile, the Real Estate Roundtable, a trade group for real estate investors, donated $50,000 to Majority Forward. Schumer and Senate Democrats recently helped Republicans unanimously pass pandemic relief legislation that included a special, little-noticed provision that amounted to $170 billion worth of new tax breaks for wealthy real estate investors.

In addition to the Colorado race, SMP has waded into at least three other Senate primaries this year.

In North Carolina, SMP funded Carolina Blue, a super PAC that spent $4.5 million to help veteran and former state senator Cal Cunningham win the primary in March. Cunningham handily defeated his chief opponent, state senator Erica Smith, who was running to his left...

In Iowa, SMP spent nearly $7 million to promote real estate developer Theresa Greenfield. She easily bested her two primary opponents, including progressive Kimberly Graham, who campaigned in support of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

SMP has already spent more than $2 million in Maine, including nearly $500,000 to promote House Speaker Sara Gideon in the Democratic primary. Some of the group’s advertising against Republican Senator Susan Collins was also designed to boost Gideon.

The final polls and final predictions showed Sara Gideon, Theresa Greenfield and Cal Cunningham beating, respectively, Collins, Ernst and Tillis. Instead the 3 Republicans are returning to the Senate. Gideon's share of the vote was a pathetic 42.7%, Greenfield's was 45.2% and Tillis' was 47.0%. The DSCC and Schumer's PAC spent ungodly amounts, as did the Democratic candidates.

In North Carolina, Cunningham raised $46,795,495 to Tillis' $21,474,728. The DSCC spent $24,542,003 and Schumer's PAC spent $35,838,924.

In Maine, Gideon raised $68,577,474 to Collins' $26,511,555. The DSCC spent $4,667,250 and Schumer's PAC spent $27,909,459.

In Iowa, Greenfield raised $47,004,937 to Ernst's $23,536,707. The DSCC spent $27,899,050 and Schumer's PAC spent $41,225,046.

Both the DSCC and the DCCC have decided to blame progressives for their cataclysmic losses, even though every single incumbent who lost was a conservative and every single progressive-- including progressives in tough districts like Matt Cartwright, Dan Kildee, Andy Levin, Peter DeFazio and Jahana Hayes-- won.

Last week Ryan Grimm asked progressive challenger Mike Siegel this question: "Do you have to run as a kind of centrist or moderate in some of these districts, or can a progressive message win in a swing district in Texas?" Mike began by comparing his race to that of another re-match Texan, Sri Kulkarni (who had an open seat this time). Kulkarni is an avowed conservative, a corporate Democrat and careerist endorsed by both the Blue Dogs and New Dems. He raised $4,863,231 compared to Troy Nehls' (R) $1,532,299 and the DCCC and Pelosi's PAC spent $7.3 million bolstering him. He lost 209,735 (51.6%) to 181,318 (44.6%). Mike Siegel is a Squad-grade progressive who raised $2,332,415 compared to Michael McCaul's $3,515,771 (as of Oct. 14). The DCCC, which preferred a conservative Democrat run, spent $270 on Mike's race and Pelosi's PAC spent zero. Yes, you read that right-- $270. McCaul was reelected 215,896 (52.5%) to 186,350 (46.3%). Had the DCCC spent part of the $7.3 million they wasted on Sri, would Mike have won? We'll never know, will we?

In answer to Grim's question, Mike pointed out that being conservative didn't help Kulkarni and even though he campaigned loudly on Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and racial justice, Mike outperformed him by every possible metric.

[W]hat I would have liked to have tested is if we had an entire progressive ticket. You know, it could be that the most consequential decisions about my campaign were made March 3, Super Tuesday, when we decided that Bernie Sanders wasn’t gonna be the presidential nominee and, in Texas, we decided that Christina Tzintzún Ramirez wasn’t going to be our Senate nominee.

So with my analysis that I’m doing now with our team and many others in Texas is what would it take to really get out more poor voters? I mean, I’m talking about poor people. Like, when you canvass in rural Texas, in a town like Eagle Lake, or Brenham, in the summer, you meet people who are in these rundown, double-wide kind of houses, basically falling apart at the seams-- people who have to survive three months of 100-degree weather with no air conditioning at all, people who have very marginal employment. What’s it going to take to get those folks to care about an election? You know, whether you’re talking about black folks and Latinx voters in a city, or poor rural voters-- black, Latino, and white-- what’s it gonna take for them to really care about an election?

And to me, Bernie Sanders would have helped us make that populous case. You know, Texas has this tradition of populism; it goes back 100 years or more. But like, if we were really talking about farm policy, if we were really talking about water policy, if we were talking about rural jobs programs, things that really affect their lives. I mean, as a congressional candidate, I was talking about these things, but it’s hard to really break through.

Same thing with Christina. You know, statewide in Texas, we’re not going to flip Texas if we don’t win the RGV, the Rio Grande Valley. And, you know, if you haven’t been to Texas, you might not realize there are communities along the border called colonias, where they don’t even have running water and municipal sewage in some of these developments. I mean, these are like, you know, sometimes undocumented residents, sometimes U.S. citizens who are living in abject poverty. What’s it gonna take to get those folks to care? And it’s not some slick TV ads, it’s not a poll-tested message. Even for me, I got some DCCC support, and some of my messaging was about prescription drug prices and protecting pre-existing conditions. But I feel like that’s too nuanced for these folks. I mean, it has to be more direct.

You know, this, this might be a little off-topic, but one of the things I’m thinking about is, think about the movements in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez or Bolivia under Evo Morales. Evo Morales is supported by the poorest indigenous farmers from the high plains of Bolivia. Those people are engaged in the electoral process. In this country, poor people are not engaged in the electoral process.

And so, for me, on a gerrymandered map, I don’t know if I could have gotten more than 210,000 votes, like McCaul got, unless we were really doing organizing with poor people. And I think that’s a longer-term investment. That’s where it’s this question, these people who gave me $2800, when I called them and spoke to them for a minute, would they give me $1,000 if I was gonna say: We’re going to invest in a five-year project to do deep organizing these communities? Is the donor class willing to invest in changing the fundamental conditions in areas like mine that would really enable progressive change in the long term?

...[O]ne of the things I’ve been preaching on the campaign trail, you know, and I got to do some events with Bernie and he absolutely loved it-- you know, this is our New Deal moment, American history: crumbling U.S. infrastructure, massive wealth inequality, unemployment-- major crises we need to confront. In the 30s it was fascism rising in Western Europe; now, it’s climate change.

And how did we enact a New Deal in this country? You know, a 15-year program, the Works Progress Administration, massively investing in infrastructure, putting people to work in all sorts of jobs. It was FDR, when he ran for president the first time, talking about the New Deal every chance he gets: We’re gonna give you a New Deal. Whatever the question was-- economic policy, jobs, health care, you name it, we’re gonna give you a New Deal.

Imagine we had a candidate for president who for 10-12 months is talking nonstop about fundamental economic change. That’s what it takes. And that’s where the Democratic establishment, which to some extent supported me, although not as strongly as they could have, they’re not talking about that, because we’re too invested in conservative donors who don’t want us to say that.

And so we’re caught in between. You know, half the Democratic Party is still taking the corporate PAC money, moderating the message, saying: OK, we’re only going to talk about this extremely narrow issue, you know, protecting pre-existing conditions or negotiating prescription drug prices downwards, whereas like people don’t have AC and it’s 100 degrees every day, they don’t have gas in the car, they’re making $10 an hour and getting 20 hours a week. I mean, they are struggling to survive. They’re completely cynical about democracy as something that’s even real in the world. And we’re not speaking clearly to them about why it matters to vote.

Today, the Washington Post reported that "The parts of America that have seen strong job, population and economic growth in the past four years voted for Joe Biden, economic researchers found. In contrast, President Trump garnered his highest vote shares in counties that had some of the most sluggish job, population and economic growth during his term. Trump fared well among voters who said the economy was their top concern, and he even won votes in places that didn’t fare particularly well under his presidency. This is perhaps a continuation of the 2016 election, when Trump won a huge share of places that had struggled under President Barack Obama. Democrats tended to view the 2020 election more as a referendum on Trump, especially his response to the pandemic." It's worth hitting that Intercept link above and reading Ryan's whole interview with Siegel. But now I want to leave you with a quirky but apocryphal story by Richard Cooke in yesterday's Daily Beast: I Covered Congressional Races in Florida in 2018, and Boy Do I Know Why Trump Won the State in 2020. "One party’s aides were courteous and organized," he wrote. "The other’s could barely tell me when the candidate was speaking next. Wanna take a guess?" He covered FL-26 and FL-27 in 2018, when Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and Donna Shalala both flipped those very blue (but Republican-held) districts blue. This year, both flipped back to red.

Situated in and near Miami, these districts make up some of the most volatile and interesting political territory in the United States. FL-27 had voted heavily for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but the House seat had been held by a socially liberal Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for 30 years. Ros-Lehtinen was retiring, and on paper the district seemed a natural Dem pick-up. The districts also overlapped with Miami-Dade, the most populous county in Florida, whose turnout would be critical in deciding a narrow gubernatorial race.

Instead of requesting interviews, I decided to see the candidates like an undecided voter would, joining the audience for stump speeches and campaign events. This seemed standard, almost old-fashioned reporting. It never occurred to me that it would be hard, let alone so hard that I’d need to extend my stay in Miami. By leaving time, I felt not like an undecided voter, but like a private detective. Finding a schedule of Republican campaign events took 15 minutes. With Democrats, this process took five days.

...Perhaps this information was at one of the other offices. Volunteers tried to be helpful. One suggested a website might have the information, and when pressed, offered unsarcastically that I “try Google.” Another showed me an event dated two weeks prior. Finally, with fanfare, someone produced a number for another campaign office. They could put me in touch with the right person. I stepped outside and dialed. I had called the switchboard for the City of Miami Gardens, Florida.

Irritation was turning into intrigue, and while the next few days were mileage and frustration-heavy, they were in some ways a reporter’s dream. The factional fighting between Miami-Dade Democrats, Florida Democrats, Senate campaign offices and the national party was flagrant. One of the few times I saw the operation energized was when I mentioned the Miami-Dade Democrats to a staffer for and she rolled her eyes. I heard more than one volunteer try to remember the names on the ballot and fail. I was left unsupervised in campaign offices, in prime eavesdropping real estate, though this was just a bonus: campaigners were ready to vent their frustrations, and I opened my confessional.

By comparison, the Republicans I encountered were courteous, organized, and dedicated. I heard a speech by the GOP challenger for FL-27, Maria Salazar, and afterwards her apparatchiks handed me business cards. At voting locations drowned in GOP paraphernalia, campaign staff showed me detailed spreadsheets, tallying how early turn-out numbers tracked with their booth-by-booth strategy. They asked if I needed anything. The competition dynamic was starting to remind me of 1980s comedy movie: a ruthless, well-heeled team up against a band of plucky misfits.

My grail quest became no easier. At one field location, I arrived just before the advertised opening time and waited by myself for hours before leaving empty-handed. Finding the number for one press secretary took phone calls to 22 different people, most of whom didn’t know who he was. Several times I was told that a particular volunteer was important and “knew everything.” Tracked down at a polling booth, he turned out to be a young backpacker, freshly arrived from Spain, who knew as little as anyone else. Later, I realized the source of this special status: he was one of the few people on the ground who could speak Spanish. Donna Shalala herself (i.e. the candidate) could not.

Following a hot tip about a possible press contact, I turned up at another campaign office with a different strategy: I would refuse to leave. After the traditional greeting-- bewilderment, being offered a chair within earshot of indiscrete conversations-- there was a short conclave. I could speak with Ben. Ben and I sat facing each other, in the middle of an open-plan office. By this time I had become a kind of connoisseur of incompetence, and I sensed that Ben was good at something, but he had not dealt with a reporter before. “Can I ask what your role with the campaign is?” Ben was a policy adviser. He had no idea if his candidate had any events that day, and no idea why he was speaking with me.

When the comms person did come in (this was treated as a special occasion), our conversation had an informality that was almost charming. I explained my difficulty with the Democratic campaigns, and the contrast with Republicans. “They’re a lot more organized than us!” she said, and I had to laugh. They sure were! Here at last was some kind of schedule, but as we stepped through it, something was missing. Through exhaustive internet searches, I had found a digital ticketing website offering a Q&A event featuring Donna Shalala. Why wasn’t it on the schedule? “Ohhh, that’s cancelled.” Perhaps, she said, they could line up an interview instead? I explained that I had been trying to see the election from the perspective of a voter, not a reporter, and how information was freely available from Republicans and almost non-existent from Democrats. Catching my drift, she started to flush.

The call came through later, when I was in a Haitian-owned coin laundry. A DNC flack in Washington, D.C. had heard I was making trouble, planning some kind of “Dems in disarray” story, and as I scribbled notes on top of an industrial dryer, I picked up the story that had been relayed to him, as much from his tone as his words. A foreign correspondent had arrived in Miami expecting VIP treatment, then got miffed when the red carpet wasn’t rolled out. Smearing the ground game would be revenge for a bruised ego. “Money at a national level has gone into these seats,” he assured me.

Walking him through what I’d seen-- and hadn’t seen-- only made him angry. “We’re going to win both of those seats,” he said, berating my ignorance. It was a strange reaction. By then I probably had as clear a snapshot of the election in Miami as anyone. Wasn’t that information useful? Potentially important, even? Instead, someone hundreds of miles away was blithely junking this eye-witness evidence in favor of obnoxious confidence. “You’ll see,” he insisted, “when we win FL-26 and FL-27 on election night, I’ll message you.” And they did, and he did.

In my reply, I pointed out that Andrew Gillum, the Democratic favorite to become Florida’s governor, had lost by a narrow margin, and that poor turnout in Miami-Dade was the culprit. And perhaps you can imagine my lack of surprise two years later, when FL-26 and FL-27 both fell to GOP challengers, one of them Maria Salazar. On the presidential ballot, Clinton’s 30-point lead in Miami-Dade shrunk to a 7-point margin for Biden.

In a piece titled What the Hell Happened to Democrats in Miami-Dade?, Rolling Stone observed ruefully that “Miami-Dade is considered safe—until election night, when suddenly it’s not,” and quoted Maria Elena Lopez, first vice-chair of the Miami-Dade Democrats.

Lopez lamented how the Democratic National Convention did not talk to, fund, or advise the local parties. “We don’t get any feedback from the DNC,” she said. “They don’t come to us and say, ‘Hey, what is the messaging that would work in your community? Where are we weak?’ [The party] doesn’t do that, at all. We are on our own.”

“Unfortunately, this is not the first time that we’ve seen this,” she said. It was not the first time I had seen it either.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powll raised $6,178,239 compared to Carlos Gimenez's $1,946,504. The DCCC and Pelosi's PAC spent about $6 million trying to save her. She lost the blue D+6 seat 177,223 (51.7%) to 165,407. Donna Shalala (the one who speaks no Spanish in a 71.7% Latino district) raised around the same $3,000,000 that her opponent, Maria Salazar (from 2018) spent. Shalala was so out of touch with her own constituents that she didn't even request help from the DCCC. In fact, she gave them money! She lost 176,114 (51.3%) to 166,705 (48.6%).

Trump Will Lose Tomorrow-- And It Won't Be Close

 

Red America by Nancy Ohanian

The foundation to any Republican presidential victory is Texas. Bottom line: if Trump loses Texas and its 38 electoral votes tomorrow, game over. But he's not likely to lose the state. It's still just too red. But the fact that Trump looks so weak in recent polls-- ahead of a nothing like Biden by just 2.3 points according to the most recent Real Clear Politics average-- is a testament to what a disastrous presidency he's presided over. And while those weak numbers may not deny Trump Texas' 38 electoral votes, they may well presage half a dozen or more GOP congressional losses in "safe" red districts. It's likely that TX-10 (McCaul), TX-21 (Roy), TX-22 (Olson), TX-23 (Hurd), TX-24 (Marchant), TX-25 (Williams) could all flip blue tomorrow.

Over the weekend, one of the Mike Siegel campaigners told me that 366,000 people had already voted early in TX-10, more people than had ever voted in an election in that district totally. Black voters, Asian voters, first-time voters and young voters all set new participation records. (301,200 voters participated in the TX-10 congressional race in 2018.) Siegel is expecting a big turnout tomorrow as well. Big turnouts are not what Republicans encourage. And those new voters and young voters and voters of color are not who Trump is trying to appeal to now.

In fact, Toluse Olorunnipa and Josh Dawsey reported for the Washington Post that Trump's madcap super-spreader rallies are focusing exclusively on his base of uneducated white racists. They wrote about episodes likely to turn off swing voters but enthuse his beloved "poorly educated," noting that in a frenzied burst of campaigning in the last days of the presidential race, Señor Trumpanzee has "accused doctors of fabricating coronavirus deaths for money, pantomimed a physical fight with Democratic rival Joe Biden, mocked a Fox News host for wearing a mask and celebrated his supporters for using pickup trucks to ambush a Biden campaign bus on a Texas highway... [H]is closing message is a classic display of the kind of red meat tailored specifically to animate his most faithful supporters. Convinced that it’s too late to change the minds of voters who are not yet sold on Trump, the president’s advisers are intensely focused on turning out those who are. Trump’s decision to forgo a broad, unifying closing message and instead double down on appealing to a narrow but enthusiastic slice of the electorate is a gamble. Whether it pays off or becomes a cautionary tale will not be known until the polls close Tuesday and the votes are counted."

It doesn't look good for Trump. His polling numbers are falling and COVID-19 infections are rising, particularly ones that are tied specifically to his super-spreader rallies, which caused at least 700 deaths, not counting Herman Cain. Yesterday 71,321 new cases were reported, bringing the U.S. total to 9,473,911-- as well as 399 new reported deaths for a total of 236,471. Swing states, many with Republican governors and or legislatures who have followed Trump's anti-science line, are being hammered. Yesterday's swing state new cases (with number of cases per million residents):

• Texas +4,193 (33,140 cases per million residents)
• Florida +4,865 (37,593 cases per million residents)
• Wisconsin +3,493 (39,307 cases per million residents)
• Ohio +3,319 (18,738 cases per million residents)
• Iowa +2,394 (41,320 cases per million residents)
• Minnesota +2,200 (26,717 cases per million residents)
• North Carolina +2,057 (26,382 cases per million residents)
• Pennsylvania +1,684 (16,755 cases per million residents)
• Arizona +1,527 (34,000 cases per million residents)
• Georgia +1,192 (34,093 cases per million residents)

Trump is in his own fantasy world though, gaslighting his rallies 'til the very end. He spread COVID to his Pennsylvania supporters in 4 rallies on Saturday. The first was on Newton where he told the crowd, "A great red wave is forming. As sure as we’re here together, that wave is forming. And they see it, they see it on all sides and there’s not a thing they can do about it."

In front of large crowds that defied public health guidelines in the middle of a pandemic, Trump offered a defiant closing message about the forces he battled during his first term, claiming that his willingness to fight them is one reason he deserves a second term.

“We did not come this far and fight this hard only to surrender our country back to the Washington swamp,” Trump said Friday in Waterford Township, Mich.

That event kicked off a four-day stretch of rallies taking him to Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Wisconsin. By the time he holds his final rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., on Monday night, Trump will have given his stump speech to tens of thousands of potential voters.

The president’s allies say he is smart to make a bet on rallying his troops at this stage of the campaign, with few undecided voters left and more to be gained from juicing turnout than from winning converts.

“The weekend before election, you’re not changing minds,” said Bryan Lanza, an adviser on Trump’s 2016 campaign and transition. “You’re not IDing supporters, you’re just turning them out. That’s where we are. Persuasion is done. He’s got to turn out what’s there.”

Trump is under more pressure to turn out his base voters in the last days of the race due to the unprecedented partisan split between Americans who vote early and those voting on Election Day.

More than 90 million Americans have already voted early or by absentee ballot, according to data maintained by the U.S. Elections Project, a nonpartisan early-voting tracker. Democrats have an edge over Republicans in several swing states, and Trump has explicitly told his supporters to cast their votes in person on Tuesday.

...The president’s strategy carries risks. His embrace of the conspiracy theories spread by his most ardent supporters about the coronavirus pandemic has driven away potential supporters, according to polls.

Trump has increasingly used his rallies to promote misinformation about the deadly virus, downplaying it and bemoaning the fact that it continues to dominate news coverage. He has told supporters that the country was “rounding the turn” on the virus even as the case count soars to record levels, and claimed without evidence that a vaccine has been held up until after the election due to politics. On Friday, he mocked Fox News host Laura Ingraham for wearing a mask to his crowded Michigan rally.

“No way!” he said from the stage. “She’s wearing a mask? She’s being very politically correct!”

During the same rally, Trump made the baseless accusation that doctors are inflating the number of patients who died of covid-19 to “get more money.”

“Now they’ll say, ‘Oh that’s terrible what he said,’ but that’s true,” Trump said of his false allegation. “It’s like $2,000 more, so you get more money.”

The American Medical Association called the claim “malicious, outrageous, and completely misguided” in a statement Friday, without naming Trump.

Trump’s conspiratorial approach to the pandemic comes as the number of Americans dying each day has begun to increase, along with the rising caseload and hospitalizations.

More than 230,000 Americans have died of covid-19, and more than 9 million have been infected.

...[H]e has veered away from his prepared remarks to offer controversial running commentary to his supporters. He has fed off crowds chanting “Lock him up!” about Biden and “Superman!” about him. Shortly before his fourth rally of the day in Pennsylvania on Saturday, Trump tweeted a video of several of his supporters forming an intimidating vehicle caravan around a Biden campaign bus as it attempted to drive down a Texas highway.

“I LOVE TEXAS!” the president wrote.

On Saturday, Keith Collins, Trip Gabriel and Stephanie Saul took NY Times readers on a trip into the 20 Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin counties across the country where they claim, inaccurately, that the battle for their states' electoral votes are fiercest. Let's follow along anyway:

Miami-Dade, FL-- A Democratic stronghold, it is not a county Mr. Trump would hope to win. But this majority-Hispanic county was a disappointment for Democrats in 2018, especially in heavily Cuban-American precincts. Younger Cuban voters have started identifying as Trump Republican here.

Disappointment in 2018? The Democrats targeted 2 congressional seats in Miami-Dade and won both. Gillum won with 59.9% and Nelson won with 60.6%

Pinellas County, FL-- Perhaps the biggest swing county in the state, which backed Mr. Trump after twice backing Barack Obama, it is a Florida microcosm: solid Democrats in St. Petersburg and Midwestern retirees elsewhere.

2018 was good for Dems in Pinellas-- Gillum won with 50.7%, Nelson won with 52.6% and Charlie Crist was reelected with 57.6%

Osceola County, FL-- Part of the greater Orlando area, it is increasingly Hispanic. Conservative retirees have been joined by hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans, who did not register in expected numbers to give Democrats an advantage in 2018, and so far, are lagging behind other groups in early voting.

Osceola was another good county for Dems in 2018-- Gillum 58.4%, Nelson 59.7%, and it performed for mediocre Rep. Darren Soto D+26. It would have been way more interesting to include Polk County  

Union County, NC-- In 2016, Mr. Trump easily won this suburban Republican bastion near Charlotte. Republicans remain dominant, but signs of disaffection with the president, along with an upswing in “unaffiliated” voters, give Democrats hope they can trim Mr. Trump’s margin.

Union is one of those counties where Republicans routinely steal votes

Wake County, NC-- One of the nation’s fastest-growing counties, Wake has shifted steadily leftward over the past 20 years, supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 by more than 100,000 votes. An influx of out-of-staters since then stands to boost the Democrats even more, potentially offsetting high Republican numbers in rural areas.

Robeson County, NC-- A former Democratic stronghold, this economically depressed county went for Mr. Trump in 2016. The prize will likely go to the candidate most popular among the Lumbee Indians, the county’s largest group. Mr. Trump held a rally here in October, and both campaigns pledged to support the tribe’s quest for federal recognition.

Robeson delivered for Democrat Dan McCready in 2018 (D+15)

Westmoreland County, PA-- Typical of other counties where Mr. Trump outperformed with white working-class voters four years ago, this area near Pittsburgh is where he must win even bigger margins to counter a likely Democratic surge in the suburbs.

Hillary screwed the pooch but 2 years later Tom Wolf took 46.4% and Bob Casey took 43.9%-- which is all Biden needs to do there and in places like it to be sure of winning Pennsylvania

Chester County, PA-- Democrats must continue their 2018 midterm surge in this suburban Philadelphia county, especially with college-educated women, or Mr. Trump could carry Pennsylvania again.

In 2018 Dems all did better than Hillary had-- Casey drew 59.2%, Wolf took 61.3% and the county performed as a D+18 for Democrat Chrissy Houlahan 

Erie County, PA-- One of three counties in the state that Mr. Trump flipped in 2016, its mix of a working-class post-industrial economy and rural towns makes it “the oracle of Pennsylvania,” in the words of a Democratic strategist.

Erie Co. regretted going for Trump in 2016 and made up for it 2 years later-- Bob Casey 55.7%, Tom Wolf 59.8 and the county is the biggest one in PA-16 and performed at a D+20 level for Democrat Ron DiNicola

Philadelphia County, PA-- The big question here is whether Mr. Biden can re-energize Black voters-- Democrats’ core supporters-- after Hillary Clinton’s lackluster showing in 2016. Mr. Biden will have to boost the numbers to counter Mr. Trump’s margins with rural white voters. The Trump campaign has taken on aggressive tactics, like videotaping voters at ballot drop boxes.

Macomb County, MI-- Heavily unionized and mostly white, the state’s third largest county has picked the statewide winner in the last seven elections for governor and president.

In 2018 Stabenow did 8 points better than Hillary and Whitmer did slightly better than Stabenow. The county performed at a D+19 level for Andy Levin

Oakland County, MI-- Once solidly Republican, it is a more affluent neighbor of Macomb County and has been trending Democratic. It is a prime example of the changes that are taking place in many of the nation’s suburbs. In 2018, it gave Gov. Gretchen Whitmer the biggest margin for a Democrat in 20 years.

Oakland was good for all the Dems running in 2018 and will be for Biden tomorrow

Kent County, MI-- This traditional Republican stronghold-- home to Grand Rapids, where President Gerald Ford was raised-- has moved away from the Republican Party in the Trump era.

Mentioning Ford is the most hawkish possible thing to say about Kent. He served from 1949 to 1973-- 100% irrelevant. Maybe they should have mentioned current Rep. Justin Amash. Stabenow and Whitmer both won the county in 2018

Brown County, WI-- Among the top counties that will decide the state’s winner is the home of vote-rich Green Bay. It’s a swing county that in 2018 voted for the Republican candidate for governor, Scott Walker, and the Democrat for Senate, Tammy Baldwin. Mr. Trump won blowout margins here compared with Mitt Romney in 2012.

Waukesha County, WI-- It is the largest of Milwaukee’s suburban counties. Long a Republican stronghold, the county underperformed for Mr. Trump in 2016. Mr. Biden has forged inroads here, but it’s not clear how deep they are.

Don't get excited; Biden has not forged any inroads in Waukesha. The writers had nothing so say so they made it up

Dane County, WI-- This is home to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and it’s where Democrats surged in an April 2020 race for the State Supreme Court. Nearly as many votes were cast here as in Milwaukee County, even though Dane has less than 60 percent of Milwaukee’s population. Heavy turnout in early voting suggests Mr. Biden is claiming those votes.

Grant County, WI-- Emblematic of southwest Wisconsin, it is one of the state’s swingiest regions, where weak partisan identity saw voters shift from Mr. Obama to Mr. Trump.

In 2018 it swung back blue-- Tony Evers beat Scott Walker by about a point and Tammy Baldwin beta her GOP opponent by 9 points

Maricopa County, AZ-- Home to Phoenix and more than 60 percent of the state’s electorate, it is Arizona’s most important county. It went narrowly for Mr. Trump in 2016, but two years later supported a Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema, for senator. The question is whether the county’s changing demographics will tip the state to a Democratic president for the first time since 1996.

Pima County, AZ-- The home of Tucson, Democrats typically run up the score here.

Pinal County, AZ-- The state’s third-largest county is a Republican redoubt. Mr. Trump will have to turn out enough rural white voters to help protect the 3.5-point margin he won the state with in 2016.

Why Is The Texas Democratic Party So Much More Effective Than The Florida Democratic Party?

 

West Texas' 11th and 13th congressional districts are the reddest in the state and 2 of the reddest districts in America, respectively R+32 and R+33. Although Obama inched over 20% in each in 2008, he sunk down below 20% in 2012 and in 2016 TX-11 voters gave Hillary 19.1% and TX-13 voters gave her 16.9%, the lowest and second lowest in the state. In Florida, the worst Hillary did anywhere was in Matt Gaetz's panhandle district (basically Alabama) where FL-01 (R+22) voters gave Hillary 28.2%.

The Democratic Party in Texas has a plan and so does the Democratic Party of Florida. Florida's plan is to ignore even relatively easy Republican districts-- like FL-25, where Trump only won by less than 2 points: 49.7% to 47.9% (with a PVI of R+4). They-- and their brilliant compatriots at the DCCC-- didn't bother to recruit a candidate to run for Congress and the Florida party has gone on the biggest attack campaign against anyone in the state in a legislative district within FL-25-- but against a Democrat, Bob Lynch, who they are claiming is a racist-- he isn't but the Florida Democratic Party is so aggressively stupid that they can't figure out the difference between racist and anti-racist. They were angry because Lynch was calling them out for their systemic racism and because he was calling them out for financial fraud as well.

In contrast, the plan in Texas includes working for every vote in every district and trying to win the state for Biden. Statewide, Texas' PVI is R+8. Florida's is R+2. If the whole Florida Democratic Party went for a picnic in the Everglades and they were all devoured by alligators, the PVI would probably instantly turn into D+2.

Writing for Politico yesterday, Will Ford reported that "For years, Democratic orthodoxy has maintained that flipping Texas Democratic in statewide races... means increasing turnout in urban areas and swing suburbs. But that strategy alone hasn’t worked yet-- even as favorable demographic changes, especially in urban areas, suburbs, and now even exurbs, have put the state in play. Now [there is] an effort by Democrats to broaden their strategy by targeting the most Republican areas of the state as well. If they can boost Democratic support in places like Odessa just slightly, then, together with the unprecedented early vote surge in cities, Democrats think they might finally get enough votes to flip the state. It’s not about winning in these deep-red counties and districts-- it’s about cutting into Republican margins, no matter how large."

It isn't that tough of a concept to understand and this cycle, when they realized the Florida Democratic Party doesn't have the collective brain power to figure it out, Janelle Christensen from the state Environmental Caucus and Fergie Reid from 90For90, took it upon themselves to recruit candidates in every open legislative seat in the state. The state party was so grateful that they gave them medals. Just kidding. The state party was furious and hampered their efforts every step of the way, even threatening and intimidating Democratic candidates, insisting they drop out of the race.

“To win statewide in Texas, we believe Democrats must continue to win the large urban counties, run close or win the exurban counties and reduce the big Republican advantages in rural areas and in small towns, at least marginally,” said Matt Angle, a founder of The Lone Star Project, a PAC that consults on Democratic political work statewide. “In 2018 Beto O’Rourke met and slightly exceeded the votes we thought he needed in urban and suburban counties. However, Cruz was able to run up the score to such an extent in the small towns and rural markets that he saved his seat in the Senate.”

Before November 3rd, it’s impossible to know whether Republican margins will remain high enough in areas like Odessa to save Texas for Republicans. Early turnout has surged across the state to such historic levels that the country’s best forecasters aren’t entirely sure how to model these new voters, especially without party registration data. Cook recently moved the race to a tossup, however, and Republicans seemed be to sensing this danger as well. In Odessa, gazing at the city map from his desk in September, Logan observed that Republicans seemed to be working harder than usual in the deep red district. “The Republicans have bought $405,000 of ads in the district. Normally they don’t buy media here. They never had to—they just relied on the county party. That tells me they’re worried.”

...For decades, motivated Democrats in West Texas have wished for more attention, resources and public engagement from Democratic Party higher ups, at both the state and national levels, but those party leaders have often balked at pumping more dollars and energy into the region, especially when many Democrats there feel so outnumbered they don’t even bother to vote or organize. Higher powers tend to ask for proof of progress first. It’s hard to make progress, though, without resources and attention in the first place-- a Catch-22 that has long plagued Democratic organizers in the region.

This pattern was finally interrupted by Beto O’Rourke’s 2018 Senate campaign. As a Democrat running a statewide, he did something revolutionary: He campaigned in every county in the state, including West Texas, where his performance helped convince party leaders and activists that caring about those counties could actually make a difference. In Lubbock, the largest city in West Texas outside of El Paso, which is often spoken of as a separate entity, O’Rourke received 35 percent of the vote, compared to Clinton’s 28 percent just two years earlier. He also shaved margins in Ector County, earning just over 30 percent, compared to Clinton’s 28—marginal increases that were seen elsewhere in small towns. These numbers were also far better than the 2014 senate race, in which Democratic candidate David Alameel received just 15 percent of the vote in Ector and 19 percent in Lubbock.

...When asked about his decision to embrace the state’s reddest areas, O’Rourke frequently credits Stuart Williams, the state party’s lone field organizer in West Texas, based out of Lubbock. Williams, who has worked in Democratic politics in the area since he was a teenager, starting as a precinct chair, is revered by West Texas Democratic organizers... O’Rourke first met Williams in Lubbock in January 2017, on a tour through the state months before he declared his candidacy. When the congressman asked Williams what the campaign needed to do in West Texas, Williams had a simple reply: “Y’all got to show up!”

...But when I asked whether he received pushback against this strategy in Democratic circles, he almost laughed. “Tons. They all said ‘your vote’s in Houston and the cities.’” West Texan voters were equally surprised: O’Rourke said some voters in West Texas told him they hadn’t seen a statewide Democratic candidate visit since LBJ.

...In Lubbock, Williams saw that O’Rourke was able to capitalize on an increase in Democratic organizing energy following Trump’s election. Activists had started reaching out to him locally, to see how they could help, and Williams ran successfully for county chair. “I can tell you without equivocation, that when I saw people move toward getting more involved … who changed the game in rural areas was Donald Trump,” said Williams. “Rural people aren’t stupid. The president becomes more of a liability every day.”

...With O’Rourke’s performance in West Texas as proof of concept, higher powers in the Democratic Party have began to at least turn their heads towards the deepest red areas of Texas. “We have thousands of precinct captains in rural areas across the state, more state county chairs than ever before,” Abhi Rahman, the state party’s communications director, told me. “We’re putting a thousand field organizers and canvassers across the state, including in many rural areas, and we’ve invested significantly in our rural programs, where we aim to keep the margin down in rural areas so we can flip the state in November. We also set a goal of engaging 100,000 more rural voters, which would be a 5 percent rural turnout increase in 2020.” ... The TDP is doing tons more work in rural areas than it did in 2016. There really is no baseline to compare this effort to.

They could compare it to the FDP. If nothing else, it will make them feel great. Bob Lynch is running for the state House in a Miami-Dade swing district held by one of the GOP's most powerful members, Dan Perez. The Florida state party has not only done nothing to help Lynch, they have attacked him viciously and done everything they could to make sure their pal Perez keeps the seat. This morning, Lynch told me that "If there was ever a time to go on a full all out offensive, this was the year. We are the Covid Capital of the US, we have a historically unpopular Governor who has hitched his wagon to a historically unpopular president and we are going into redistricting as a result of the census."

Lynch further noted that "Democrats in Texas and Georgia have figured this out; why haven’t we in Florida? The answer is simple. The people in power, like Gary Farmer and Joe Geller, have cushy gigs in the minority and don’t want to upset their Republican bosses. It is despicable and people are dying as a result. The state of Florida is a business and everything is for sale. Politicians, the media, you name it. Florida and Miami-Dade Dems are more interested in making sure their consultants get paid than getting candidates elected. There needs to be a full audit of the Florida Dems once this election is over. Where did all of this money go?"

Will The Anti-Red Tsunami Sweep The Democrats Back Into Control Of State Legislatures-- Yes, But Why Not Florida?

 

Florida Man x 3

Reporting for National Journal, Mary Frances McGowan and Leah Askarinam wrote about the state of the crucial-- but largely ignored-- down-ballot battles over control of state legislatures. In a tsunami-- even though it's primarily a rejection of Trump-- Republicans on all levels are staring into the wide open maw of defeat. In 2010, two years after Obama's big win, due almost entirely to Democratic Party complacency and incompetence on every level, 21 state legislative chambers flipped from blue to red. The Republicans used these wins to further gerrymander state after state into GOP bastions, particularly North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Texas. (Democrats did basically the same thing in Illinois and Maryland.)

"Ten years later," wrote McGowan and Askarinam, "Democrats control 39 legislative chambers out of 98 total (excluding Nebraska, which is unicameral). Republicans are on defense, and Democratic groups are stressing the importance of having a seat at the table during redistricting, not to mention the importance of policy goals like expanding Medicaid and increasing voter access." They warn that it's no easy task. Republicans drew the boundaries of the districts being fought over and the Republican State Leadership Committee has had "a gargantuan financial war chest" to work with. Blue America is trying to boost the chances of progressive candidates across the country and you can contribute to any or all of them by clicking on the ActBlue thermometer on the right. National Journal delineates the 10 most likely chambers to flip a week from Tuesday.

The 67 seat Minnesota Senate, which currently has 35 Republicans and 32 Dems, is probably the surest bet, with 10 Republican-held districts that Governor Tim Walz carried in 2018. The Dems need to flip just 2 of them and are likely to flip at least 5.

In Arizona, both Houses are controlled by the GOP and both look flippable in a state that is trending blue and where Biden is way ahead and where Democrat Mark Kelly looks sure to beat GOP incumbent Martha McSally in a US Senate landslide. Governor Ducey is loathed because of his disastrous pandemic response and state legislators are going to get walloped because of him (and Trump). "More so than in other state legislatures," wrote McGowan and Askarinam, "the results from the two chambers are likely to reflect one another. Arizona is divided into 30 legislative districts, each of which is represented by one state senator and two state House members. Republicans hold a 17-13 majority in the state Senate and a 31-29 majority in the House. Democrats should be able to win both but, like Minnesota , this isn't going to have any impact on the redrawing of district lines. (Arizona has an independent commission doing that job.)

Texas though, is a real battle-royale where the ability of the GOP to gerrymander is very much at stake. This one is CRUCIAL. Please contribute to Lorenzo Sanchez, Eric Holguin and Erin Zwiener here. Right now there are 83 Republicans and 67 Democrats in the state House and the Democrats are heavily targeting the 9 Republican-held seats that Beto O’Rourke carried in his 2018 Senate race, focusing on blue-trending suburban areas near Houston and Dallas, where Trump has become an albatross around the neck of every Republican. If the Democrats flip this chamber, the repercussions nationally will be humongous because GOP plans to gerrymander newly blue congressional districts will have to be scrapped.

The Iowa House has a 53-47 Republican majority. The Democrats need 4 seats to take back control. The legislature doesn’t draw the legislative boundaries but it gets to approve or disapprove them. Democrats control 3 of the 4 congressional districts and the 4th is an open seat where J.D. Scholten is running the most energetic campaign in the state. It looks like Biden is going to win the state, as will Theresa Greenfield, who is leading GOP Senator Joni Ernst by 1.8 points on average.

The Michigan House looks ready to flip back to the Democrats as well. Right now the GOP holds 58 seats to the Democrats' 52 but Gov. Gretchen Whitmer carried Oakland County by 17 points in 2018 and the Democrats are fighting hard to pick up seats there and in other suburban districts.

I would call it a much longer shot, but Democrats feel they can take back both the House and Senate in North Carolina, in great part because a federal court declared the old map unconstitutional, the Democrats had a very successful recruiting season and because both Governor Roy Cooper and Biden are surging right now. The Dems need 5 state Senate seats (and 2 are sure things). "The path to netting the other three," wrote McGowan and Askkarinam, "is scattered across the state, with promising races taking place in Raleigh, Winston-Salem, and the Piedmont region. Democrats point to Senate District 24 in Alamance County, where Democratic veteran J.D. Wooten is running against Republican Amy Galey, as a bellwether. Trump carried that district by 12 points in 2016; if Wooten makes it across the finish line, the chamber is likely to follow. In the state House, Democrats need to flip six seats to take a majority. The landscape is a bit rockier than in the Senate, due to a handful of vulnerable incumbents whom the party needs to protect. However, the party has identified nine Republicans they see as vulnerable."

Pennsylvania should be easier, where the state House has 110 Republicans and 93 Dems but with plenty of suburban targets around Philly and Harrisburg for the Democrats to win in, along with Biden. The Democrats are also likely to flip 3 state Senate seats, but they need a 4th (in Lancaster) and if they win it it will mean the anti-red tsunami is bigger than most people expect.

The toughest of the 10 chambers is the Georgia state House, where Democrats need to pick up 16 seats. They'll win seats but probably more like 7 or 8 than 16.

That leaves a chamber that should be a relatively do-able pick up unmentioned: the Florida state Senate, which the top Senate Democrat, Gary Farmer, seems absolutely determined to lose. The state Senate consists of 23 Republicans and 17 Democrats, so the Dems need 3 for a tie and 4 for a majority. It's almost as if they made a deal with the Republicans to go after 2, which will leave the Senate with a 21-19 GOP majority. Early on, the Democrats tried recruiting failed gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink to run for the open SD-20 seat (parts of Hillsborough, Polk and Pasco counties). She declined but the candidate who nearly won the seat against Tom Lee, the retiring incumbent, in 2018 is in it to win it. The state party has not been welcoming, at least in part because Lewis is black and they try to prevent minority candidates from running in "white" districts. (Yes, it's the worst Democratic state party in the country-- or maybe tied for worst with Ohio's.) Right now, it looks like Lewis is going to beat far right nut-job Daniel Burgess, despite Farmer and the state party. That'll make it a tied chamber; one more seat and they have a win.

Dr. Fergie Reid of 90For90, who helped recruit so many of the Florida candidates told me this morning that "Some Democrats are on offense in Florida; many of these Democrats are playing a beautiful style of 'team electoral politics.' 2020 Florida Democrats are contesting 83 of the 84 GOP held State Legislative Districts; 11 out of 11 in the State Senate and 72 out of 73 in the State House. In the 14 GOP held congressional districts, Democrats are contesting 12. Two Republicans were given walkovers,' on the candidate filing deadline date in April, Mario Diaz-Balart in the prime swing district in the state-- CD 25-- and Neal Dunn in CD 2. Recent polling shows serious Biden strength, and serious Trump weakness in Florida. Republicans are fearful of an impending 'shellacking' and rightfully so. Their great fear is losing control. If they lose either the state House or state Senate, Florida Dems will have a say in the next decade’s electoral maps. Kathy Lewis for SD 20 is the 'rate limiting step' to this Democratic 'power possibility' in Florida. Moreover, the state Senate candidates in todo are the key drivers for a potential Biden overperformance throughout the state: Karen Butler for SD 1, Stacey Peters for SD 5, Heather Hunter for SD 7, Scott Fretwell for SD 17, Kathy Lewis for SD 20, Tony Eldon for SD 21, Katherine Norman for SD 23, Corinna Robinson for SD 25 and Rachel Brown for SD 27; the other Florida Senate candidates are already receiving max support. Help the neglected candidates for maximum effect. Sprint to the finish line. Leave no doubt.

Who's missing from this photo-- Matt Gaetz, Ted Yoho, Joe Gruters, Daniel Perez, Bill Galvano, Dane Eagle, Ashley Moody?

The most unpopular governor in America, Ron DeSantis, is not on the ballot. If voters want to make him pay for his pro-COVID/anti-Florida agenda, the can only take it out on his cronies in the legislature. And they should. DeSantis has killed 16,110 Floridians and the state's case total is 760,389-- 35,404 cases per million Floridians, far worse than any big state in the country. On Kathy Lewis' website, is a message about the pandemic: "In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Florida has seen unprecedented numbers of citizens lose their livelihoods and having to navigate an unemployment system that was seemingly designed to deter users from accessing much needed unemployment assistance. Florida’s response to COVID-19 has been disorganized and lacking in measures focused on saving lives. Kathy believes we need a robust and thorough plan developed with the expert advice of scientists and public health professionals to deal with the current pandemic and to prepare Florida for future pandemics with our citizens’ health and safety as our priority."

Bob Lynch is running for the Florida state House held by a top GOP leader-- who is protected by the Florida Democratic Party-- Daniel Perez. Bob explained that "The reason Florida is not on the list is because Florida Democrats made the calculated decision to not be on the list. This was largely led by Gary Farmer, who has a cushy gig in the minority, and he doesn’t want to rock the boat. Cutting deals with Republicans is his job. Representing Florida is not."

"There is," he continued, "a solid chance we flip Georgia, Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, and even freakin’ South Caroline Blue.  You’d think that Florida Dems would take advantage of this historic opportunity to go on a full court press to flip the Florida State Senate and House going into a redistricting year. Instead, Gary Farmer and his cronies decided to spend all of their time and money on Senate District 9 and 39 because that’s where their consultants and vendors can get paid the most and send the kickbacks all up the chain. They have not only completely ignored a historic slate of Senate candidates featuring @Butler4FLSen, @KathyLewisforFL, @Rachel_D_Brown, @NormanFlSenate, @CorinnaRobinson, @HeatherForSD7, @fretwellforfl, and @tonyforflorida, they have openly worked against some of them. Any one of these candidates could change the balance of power in Florida for a decade. Yet Gary and Juan Peñalosa have done everything in their power to abandon and torpedo these candidates. At a certain point, you have to ask yourself why?"

One very prominent candidate who is likely to be serving in the legislature next year and asked me not to divulge his name told me that "The Democrats are bringing a water gun to a bazooka fight with the Florida state legislature. Rather than help Democratic candidates win crucial races across the state, they're leaving them high and dry while actively working against candidates challenging Republican authority. It's genuinely disgusting how little party leadership actually wants to take back the state for the Democrats, especially considering Florida is a swing state with redistricting right around the corner. Republicans will fundraise and promote all of their candidates and shower them with buckets of cash to win. While the Democrats will be like 'OMG thanks for running XD' while doing absolutely nothing to help them win. It's embarrassing. One would think with the GOP's agenda sprinting towards fascism, the Dems might want to help out in critical races. But no, they'd rather be in the minority and collect a check. Holy shit what a petulant opposition party!"

Matt Rogers of Politidope-- and a legislative candidate himself in Virginia-- told me that for the last year, he's "been laser-focused on flipping Florida's 29 Electoral College votes for whomever the Democratic nominee ended up being. During that time, I've heard blood-boiling discussion of inspiring Democratic candidates being recruited OUT of races, party leaders wishing black candidates were 'more attractive' and Party 'leaders' themselves going on Twitter can saying they don't want to 'waste' resources on the brave candidates I've been so fortunate to work alongside with. Nevertheless, we persist. We've got only a few days left to raise money (until October 29th at 11:59 PM) for them. Let's do everything we can to help them and, in effect, help flip Florida's 29 Electoral College votes against the fascist in the White House.

Best Bets For November 3: Mike Siegel (TX-10)

 

Behind the scenes Republican operative gave up on winning back the House early in the campaign. Lately they're realizing that even the "easy" wins are beyond their grasp. They should be able to take back seats from Blue Dogs in deep red districts like SC-01 (R+10), UT-04 (R+13), OK-05 (R+), NY-22 (R+6), MN-07 (R+12), VA-07 (R+6), respectively Joe Cunningham, Ben McAdams, Kendra Horn, Anthony Brindisi, Collin Peterson and Abigail Spanberger, half dozen of the worst incumbents from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Their records are unabashedly opposed to everything Democratic voters want. But this is another one of those "any blue will do" years.

Now that Republican operatives have come to realize that the White House and their Senate majority are gone too, they are also seeing something even more scary than not being able to take back seats like the 6 listed above. And that's losing more deep-red districts like them that the DCCC didn't even target.

Here's how that works: the DCCC now routinely destroys progressive candidates when they try to run in primaries in "winnable" district primaries. In "impossible" districts they rarely bother-- or only make a half-assed attempt. In a tsunami year like this one, suddenly some of those "impossible" districts become very winnable. Progressive candidates like Julie Oliver (TX-25, R+11), Adam Christensen (FL-03, R+9), Audrey Denney (CA-01, R+11), Nate McMurray (NY-27, R+11), Liam O'Mara (CA-42, R+9), J.D. Scholten (IA-04, R+11) and Mike Siegel (TX-10, R+9) are all the kinds of progressives the DCCC would normally try to sabotage-- but in districts like those? Why bother?

Winning in the relatively close districts, the top DCCC targets-- like in NY-24 (D+3), NJ-02 (R+1), TX-23 (R+1), PA-01 (R+1), NY-02 (R+3), IL-13 (R+3), and MN-08 (R+4) aren't that big a deal. Republicans will shrug those losses off. It isn't going to make them reexamine what Trump and other neo-fascists have done to their party. But when "safe" GOP incumbents in deep red districts like Roger Williams (TX-25), Doug LaMalfa (CA-01), Ken Calvert (CA-42) and Michael McCaul (TX-10) start losing their seats... that's when it's time for talks about existentialism and for a general party shakeup. If Brian Fitzpatrick loses, it doesn't mean much; if Michael McCaul does... scores of Republican incumbents know they are no longer safe. But can McCaul lose? Two polls show him and Mike Siegel within the margin of error and with all the momentum belonging to Siegel. Dan Solomon did a deep dive for the Texas Monthly last week-- Can a Bernie-Style Democrat Unseat Longtime Republican Representative Michael McCaul in TX-10? And, believe me, that prospect scares the Democratic establishment every single bit as much as it scares the Republican establishment... which is a lot.

"Redistricting did a number on TX-10," wrote Solomon. "It was one of several districts redrawn in 2003 to dilute Democratic-voting Austinites by dividing them among multiple districts dominated by GOP-leaning voters in rural parts of the state (see also: TX-17, TX-21, and TX-25). The Tenth now includes a tiny sliver of Travis County, where Austin is located, as well as parts of Harris County, home of Houston, and stretches through the rural areas between those two cities. The dynamics of the Tenth have flipped: in 2004, after Doggett was redistricted out of TX-10, Democrats declined to put up a challenger to Republican Michael McCaul, who’s held the seat ever since. Democrats have run in the Tenth since then, but for most of McCaul’s tenure, their presence on the ballot barely registered in the ultra-red district. But in 2018, Mike Siegel, running as a progressive Democrat, came within 4.3 points of unseating McCaul. In 2020, Siegel won the Democratic primary again, setting up a rematch of one of 2018’s more surprisingly competitive races."

[McCaul] has cast votes with the current president more than 95 percent of the time, including on the border wall and the Trump tax cuts. He also found himself at the center of the mask-wearing debate earlier this month after Trump tested positive for COVID, when photos and video surfaced of him going without a face mask on a United Airlines flight. (McCaul claimed the mask fell off while he was sleeping, though subsequent video indicates he didn’t wear it while awake, either.) McCaul, whose father-in-law is the founder and former chairman of radio and advertising giant Clear Channel Communications, is one of the richest members of Congress, with a net worth estimated at $113 million. He’s also well funded, having raised more than $2.5 million this cycle, $1.3 million of which he had on hand at of the end of the year’s second quarter.

Many of the Democrats looking to flip traditionally red districts in Texas are running as moderates and trying to court conservative suburban voters who may feel alienated by the Trump-era GOP. Not Mike Siegel, a labor lawyer and former public school teacher, whose platform touts issues including the Green New Deal, racial justice, and Medicare for all. Siegel is also focused on labor reform-- especially ending “at-will” employment, which allows workers to be fired for any (or no) reason-- and dramatically reshaping U.S. housing policy amid the COVID-19 pandemic. He boasts a trio of high-profile endorsements from former Democratic presidential candidates-- Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Beto O’Rourke-- as well as those of prominent national organizations including the AFL-CIO and Planned Parenthood, and a slew of local politicians, organizations, and newspapers (including the Houston Chronicle).

Siegel has raised $900,000 according to his most recent FEC filing. It’s money he’s been spending at a steady clip: just $164,000 remained as cash on hand at the end of Q2.

The Tenth is changing. Mitt Romney won the district by twenty points in 2012, Trump won by nine points in 2016, and Ted Cruz lost by two-tenths of a percent in 2018. Much of this change has been driven by growth in the urban parts of the district over the last decade, a trend that seems to have kept up after Siegel’s close loss in the 2018 contest: in the last two years, Travis County has added more than 70,000 new voters, while Harris County has added 111,360 to its rolls. (Not every newly registered voter in either county lives in TX-10, of course, but enough of them do to identify the district as one that’s rapidly changing.)

Siegel won Austin by a huge margin in 2018, while McCaul won over voters in the Houston suburbs that year by a narrower (but still comfortable) amount. The rural middle part of the district, meanwhile, also favored McCaul—but 2018 Libertarian party candidate Mike Ryan pulled a whopping 8 percent of the vote outside of Harris and Travis Counties. Siegel could win this year if he runs up the numbers in Austin, keeps it closer in the Houston suburbs, and if the Libertarian on the ballot, Roy Eriksen, can pull votes from McCaul outside of the two cities. (The possibility that third-party candidates could have an impact on close House races led the Texas GOP to sue to keep 44 Libertarians off the ballot earlier this year, though they lost the suit.)

...If Austin turns out in big numbers, and the Houston suburbs prove receptive to a Democrat in the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mold, Siegel could win.

Austin is turning out in large numbers... unprecedented large numbers. Conservative prognosticators who have written off Siegel's chance to flip this district may be in for a huge shock a week from tomorrow. And if you want to help, you can click on the Blue America congressional thermometer above or just hit this Turning Texas Blue link. Electing conservative Democrats of the DCCC ilk accomplishes nothing for the American people-- no reform, no systemic change of any kind. Electing men and women like Mike Siegel and Julie Oliver in Texas... that's what makes the Democratic Party worthwhile and a legitimate vehicle for working families. This cycle, it is only by electing candidates like Siegel and Oliver that can cause a genuine GOP reexamination of what kind of sewer they have slipped into over the past few decades.