Trump's Pandemic Policies Aren't Killing Enough People To Impact His Vote Totals, But It's The People Left Behind Who Will Get Their Revenge In November

Remember a couple of weeks ago when I was making fun of the professional prognosticators for rating Montana's Senate race a "lean Republican?" I predicted they would all be backing away from that foolishness by summer. It's still mid-May and the National Journal's Hotline Power ratings has already tipped Montana as a viable target for Democrats-- as well as both Georgia Senate seats!

In his Tuesday email, even Charlie "walking on eggs" Cook-- acknowledging the enormity of the implications of a Democratic takeover of the Senate-- ventured to say that the chance of the GOP holding onto the Senate majority, once 66% in Cook-world, is now a "50-50 proposition." For someone as overly cautious and conservative as Cook, that is tantamount saying the Democrats have a lock on a big win for the Senate races. "Now with popular Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock challenging GOP incumbent Steve Daines in Montana," he wrote, "newly-appointed Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler mired in a horrific political situation and the possibility that Republicans could draw an exceedingly weak candidate in what should be a safe seat in Kansas (filing deadline June 1), among other problems adding to previous woes with incumbents Martha McSally in Arizona, Susan Collins in Maine, Cory Gardner in Colorado and North Carolina’s Thom Tillis all in races that are, at best, toss ups. Combine those... with a recession that has effectively eliminated any tailwind that President Trump had been enjoying from a strong economy and it is hard to see his re-election prospects looking anything but more dire by the week. Today there is more than a one-in-three chance that Democrats will win a trifecta in November, the White House, the Senate and the House. The policy and governing implications are enormous." [This morning Cook speculated that both Georgia Senate seats may be competitive!]

Keep in mind that these outcomes are not independent of each other, a Trump victory would be more likely to be accompanied by retention of the Senate, a Trump defeat would raise the odds of Democrats taking over the Senate. This isn't 'coattails," (I don't believe in coattails), but the turnout dynamics, the issue agenda and priorities and the political environment that would exist to re-elect, or defeat Trump would also be in place for a Senate that is already teetering on the edge. Our system isn't quite parliamentary but is getting increasingly more so, the linkage is greater, the ticket-splitting diminishing.

It would be hard to overstate the importance that the combination of President Trump in the White House and a Mitch McConnell-led Republican Senate majority has had on shaping the Federal judiciary. Two U.S. Supreme Court Justices, 51 judges on the 13 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals and 138 Federal District judges have been confirmed under this Trump-McConnell combo, two more Circuit and 40 more district judges are in the pipeline, awaiting confirmation. As enormous as the consequences are and will be for a generation or two, the implications of yet another two or four years of Republicans controlling even more judicial nominations is enough to give most on the left or right heart palpitations, out of either joy or terror.

Moving beyond judicial nominations, the policy implications are incredible as well. Back in the day, one party holding the White House and a House majority but a razor-thin edge in the Senate would find itself greatly stymied, real limits on what they could accomplish. But now, with the threshold for most executive and all judicial confirmations down to a simple majority and the possibility of the filibuster being completely scrapped, the governing implications are head-spinning.  

And the unofficial mouth of Inside-the-Beltway conventional wisen, Josh Kraushaar, noted at the same time that "Republicans are growing increasingly worried that President Trump’s shaky political position will not just cost them the presidency, but also sweep in a Democratic Senate majority and further diminish their House minority. The latest round of polling shows the president losing to Joe Biden, as well as Democrats gaining ground in red-state Senate seats that once looked like long shots, from Georgia to Montana to Kansas. There’s a growing chance that Democrats may capture control of the Senate with a seat or two to spare."

It's horrifying that Schumer has it rigged to make sure the new Democratic Senate majority is a dogged conservative, anti-progressive majority. There's still time do something about that in a few states, especially Colorado, where progressive Andrew Romanoff and conservative John Frackenlooper each is a sure bet to beat walking dead GOP Senator Cory Gardner. Schumer is doing all he can to paint Frackenlooper as inevitable. But he isn't and Romanoff is beating him by every metric but corporate cash, which has gushed into the Frackenlooper campaign. Please consider contributing to Romanoff and the other progressive Senate candidates by clicking on the 2020 Senate thermometer on the right and giving what you can. Back to Kraushaar:

The current political environment is reminiscent of 2008, two years after Democrats swept control of the House and Senate under President George W. Bush. It’s mostly remembered for Barack Obama’s historic election, but the Democrats’ downballot dominance was just as remarkable. Riding deep dissatisfaction with GOP leadership, Democrats expanded their Senate majority to a near filibuster-proof margin and won House seats in some of the most reliably conservative territory in the country.

Like the political environment today, the 2008 election took place in the middle of a national crisis. Back then, the Republican presidential nominee insisted that the fundamentals of the country were strong during a deepening recession. Now a Republican president is publicly insisting he has “met the moment” and prevailed, despite rising death rates and massive unemployment from the coronavirus. Then, as now, a Democratic challenger used the GOP candidate’s own words in devastating attack ads.

As the New York Times’ Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman wrote: “The two elections were effectively a single continuous rejection of Republican rule, as some in the GOP fear 2018 and 2020 could become in a worst-case scenario.”

Having covered the 2008 congressional campaigns closely, I’m also struck by how much in common that the two elections share. That year, Democrats netted eight Senate seats, sweeping comedian Al Franken into office while winning races in conservative strongholds such as Alaska and South Dakota as part of a big blue wave. Republicans didn’t even field a candidate in Arkansas, one of the most conservative states on the map. Mitch McConnell faced the closest race of his Senate career, barely defeating a not-ready-for-prime-time Democratic challenger.

“[My race] isn’t going to be a landslide,” McConnell told me at the time. “The president is not popular. The economy is certainly slow, so it’s a much more contested environment.”

Repeat McConnell’s words 12 years later and they hold true today. Look at the wider Senate map, and you can see eerie parallels. A poll conducted by Georgia Republicans shows the state’s senior Sen. David Perdue only polling at 45 percent, just 6 points ahead of Democrat Jon Ossoff. Perdue hasn’t been considered particularly vulnerable, but it’s now plausible to see him locked in a competitive race if the bottom falls out for the president. (This is the “other” Senate election in Georgia, which hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention as the special Senate election involving embattled GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler.)

The possibility of other red-state surprises are apparent: The emergence of conservative hard-liner Kris Kobach as a possible Senate nominee in Kansas is giving Democrats an unusual opportunity in a state that hasn’t voted a Democrat to the Senate in nearly 90 years. Gov. Steve Bullock’s entrance into Montana's Senate race is putting Sen. Steve Daines’s seat squarely in play. McConnell even faces well-funded opposition from another not-ready-for-prime-time Democratic challenger in the middle of another crisis. If Republicans lose even one of these red-state seats, the odds that Democrats win an outright majority in the Senate increases dramatically.

Another major storyline this year is the Republican Party’s inability to recruit credible House candidates, particularly in districts that Trump carried in 2016. Many freshman Democrats representing Trump districts aren’t facing tough Republican opposition. Twelve years ago, that dynamic was similarly apparent on the Senate side. Only one Democratic senator faced credible GOP competition that year-- Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu-- and she still coasted to victory over now-Sen. John Kennedy. Then-Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat, ran unopposed by Republicans in Arkansas, a state that John McCain comfortably carried.

...[R]ight now, Trump and his Republican party are in dire shape. The history of embattled presidents facing reelection during a worsening crisis doesn’t offer much comfort. Even Trump, always averse to uncomfortable truths, recognizes this.

In a series of half a dozen tweets this week, Paul Krugman asserted that the GOP has given up "on trying to control Covid and reopen the economy; the propaganda arm (Fox and worse) is going all in for conspiracy theorizing and virus trutherism. At one level this shouldn't be surprising. It's the same script the party has followed on climate change, and the virus truthers are a lot like the inflation truthers who insisted that we had runaway inflation under Obama. But what's going on now seems to involve a new level of political recklessness. Climate change takes place over decades; inflation truthers paid no political or personal price for being wrong again and again. But if the virus erupts, it will happen quickly. In other words, the GOP has in effect decided to ignore the science at the clear risk of being held accountable in the near future both for killing thousands and for wrecking the economy, because that's what a premature opening would do. Why take that risk? Partly they may be high on their own supply, no longer able to conceive that there is an objective reality that might be politically inconvenient. Partly I think it's because they know in their hearts that they can't actually do the job of governing. But anyway, we're witnessing a lethal abdication of responsibility whose consequences will be quickly apparent. It's truly awesome to watch."





Earlier today we saw what Republicans in control of the state legislature and state Supreme Court are doing to Wisconsin. It's as if they want to kill people! And in nearly every state where Republicans can, they are making the pandemic worse. Yesterday, writing for the NY Times, Trip Gabriel reported that GOP defiance of Pennsylvania's lockdown has 2020 implications. Pennsylvania has been horribly hit by the pandemic. There are 63,122 cases-- 6th worst in the country-- with 4,320 more confirmed cases yesterday and 4,931 cases per million in the population, the 11th hardest hit state by the metric. And although, predictably, Philadelphia has been hardest hit, cases have spiked in Trump counties as well. This list shows cases + Trump's 2016 percentage of the votes in the 15 worse hit counties:

• Philadelphia- 19,093 cases-- Trump- 15.5%
• Montgomery- 5,583 cases-- Trump- 37.6%
• Delaware- 5,252 cases-- Trump- 37.4%
• Bucks- 4,248 cases-- Trump- 47.8%
• Berks- 3,530 cases-- Trump- 52.9%
• Lehigh- 3,378 cases-- Trump- 45.9%
• Northampton- 2,566 cases-- Trump- 50.0%
• Luzerne- 2,477 cases-- Trump- 58.4%
• Lancaster- 2,364 cases-- Trump- 57.3%
• Chester- 2,008 cases-- Trump- 43.3%
• Alleghany- 1,551 cases-- Trump- 40.0%
• Lackawana- 1,256 cases- Trump- 46.8%
• Monroe- 1,240 cases-- Trump- 48.1%
• Dauphin- 895 cases-- Trump- 46.6%
• Lebanon- 856 cases-- Trump- 65.9%

Gabriel reported that on Monday, addressing county lawmakers, Governor Tom Wolf slammed the GOP with "a stunning rebuke, as resistance to lockdown orders flares around the country." Wolf "a military metaphor to accuse Republican officials of desertion in the battle against the pandemic: 'To those politicians who decide to cave in to this coronavirus they need to understand the consequences of their cowardly act.'"

The normally mild-mannered governor’s comments turned up the temperature of a national debate over the health emergency, one fanned by President Trump as he eggs on protesters at state capitols, including in Harrisburg, and by lawmakers in Congress, where the government’s top health officials warned this week of dire consequences if the economy reopens too soon.

On Thursday, the president arrived in Pennsylvania, one of several battleground states crucial to his re-election, where the political combat over limiting the virus’s death toll or easing its economic devastation could have weighty consequences in November. While 26 percent of the state’s work force has filed for unemployment, the governor is relying on metrics about the virus’s spread to keep many people in their homes and all but “life-sustaining” businesses in populous regions closed.

Republicans, sensing a gut-level anger in exurban and rural areas after nearly two months of restrictions, see an issue with the potential to drive turnout by voters in a state where Mr. Trump, as elsewhere in the industrial and Midwest region, needs a surge of support to repeat his narrow victory of 2016. In Wisconsin, also a swing state, the State Supreme Court sided with Republicans on Wednesday and threw out the stay-at-home order of Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. In Texas, armed men have shown up to support businesses defying government orders to stay closed, an extreme sign of the politicizing of social distancing rules.

At the same time, polls show that Mr. Wolf, like other governors moving cautiously and heeding scientific benchmarks to reopen, is enjoying record support, including among many Republicans.

Mr. Trump seemed to address Mr. Wolf on Monday via Twitter. “The great people of Pennsylvania want their freedom now, and they are fully aware of what that entails,” he tweeted. “The Democrats are moving slowly, all over the USA, for political purposes.”

The governor’s accusation of cowardice was directed at officials in half a dozen Republican-led counties that have said they would defy his timeline for reopening businesses. Mr. Wolf has partly lifted restrictions on 37 counties, mainly in rural regions where community spread of the virus is more easily contained.

But with the rest of the state, including its populous southeast, still under a strict stay-at-home order through June 4, officials in some counties said they would ignore the governor and open up starting Friday.

“The health crisis is real, but the economic devastation is real also,” said Josh Parsons, a commissioner of Lancaster County, one of those moving to loosen restrictions despite not meeting all of the governor’s health benchmarks.

He described “chaos on the ground” as people openly disregarded stay-at-home orders in recent weeks. “People have been voting with their feet and going back to work because they have to,” he said.

Some Republican strategists said the issue of reopening Pennsylvania would add motivation to turn out for Mr. Trump against the Democratic Party in November.

“I’ve sensed a very, very strong backlash in, quote, the hinterlands,” said Charlie Gerow, a Republican strategist in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Trump narrowly carried Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes in 2016. To compensate for population growth and rising anger at his presidency in the Philadelphia suburbs, which lifted Democrats in recent elections, he needs higher support among white men, with and without college degrees.

“My sense is there is a significant number of voters who did not vote in 2016 for whatever reasons who will be voting for President Trump in 2020, and part of it is this overreach by Governor Wolf,” Mr. Gerow said.

Mr. Gerow may be on strong drugs. The pre-COVID Morning Consult Trump Tracker showed Trump having lost 11 approval points since his inauguration and his net job approval underwater 49-48%. Since the pandemic kicked in, Trump's numbers have submerged. The Real Clear Politics polling average shows Biden beating him 48.3- 41.8%-- a 6.5% spread. The most recent polling (last week in April) was conducted by a Republican polling firm, Harper. It shows 49% of voters ready to vote for Biden and just 43% ready for Trump. Only 23% of respondents say the disagree with Pennsylvania ordering all non-essential businesses closing under threat of criminal prosecution and only 14% disagreed with Pennsylvania closing all schools for the remainder of the school year. 16% disagreed with the governor's stay-at-home orders. I wonder if Mr. Gerow is ready for those odds.

Gabriel noted that "A survey released this week by the Washington Post/Ipsos showed that 72 percent of Pennsylvania adults approved of how the governor has handled the coronavirus outbreak, including 51 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Only 45 percent of all adults in the state supported Mr. Trump’s handling of the outbreak. In addition, seven in 10 Pennsylvanians said the United States should keep trying to slow the virus’s spread even if it means keeping businesses closed. Nearly half of Republicans agreed."

“I’m baffled by what the Republican game plan is here,” said J.J. Balaban, a Democratic strategist in Pennsylvania. “I guess they think this will rally their base, but it seems to speak to a narrow base that is already riled up, while alienating them from the kinds of voters they need to carry Pennsylvania.”

In Lancaster County, as well as others that have moved to reopen despite the governor’s orders, the rate of new coronavirus cases remains higher than 50 per 100,000 people over the previous two weeks, a target Mr. Wolf’s administration set for moving counties to a “yellow” phase of partial reopening. Lancaster County also has one of the highest death tolls in the state, with 183 as of Thursday.

Other counties where Republican officials vowed late last week to defy the governor include Dauphin, Franklin, Lebanon, Berks and Schuylkill, roughly the region from the Philadelphia exurbs west to Harrisburg. Some county sheriffs and district attorneys said they would not pursue businesses that opened despite the governor’s orders. On Wednesday, after Mr. Wolf warned that defiant counties would face consequences, Dauphin County’s commissioners backed down and said they would not unilaterally move to yellow status.

Mr. Parsons, the Lancaster County commissioner, and other local Republican officials argue that the county has met more important metrics for reopening than the growth of new virus cases, including the availability of intensive-care beds and ventilators in hospitals. Deaths are high because the county has many nursing homes, he said.

“We need to protect those people in nursing homes, but that doesn’t mean some people can’t safely and prudently go back to work,” Mr. Parsons said.

On Monday, Mr. Wolf threatened to withhold federal coronavirus relief money from counties that disobeyed him and reopened early.

He also told business owners who reopened too early that they risked losing certificates of occupancy, liquor licenses and insurance. “Insurance does not cover things that happen to businesses breaking the law,” he warned.

Pennsylvania Voters Ready To Get Revenge

Pennsylvania was one of the states targeted by Russian hackers in 2016. They helped put an illegitimate "president" into the White House by a handful of votes. In Pennsylvania it was 44,292 votes out of 5,897,174 cast. Kushner's team told the Russians to concentrate on four counties: Erie, Luzerne, Northampton, Lackawanna, Obama country in 2012, all of whom provided Trump with "plausible" wins in 2016. He took the state's 20 electoral votes by beating Hillary 2,970,733 (48.18%) to 2,926,441 (47.46%). In 3 weeks, the Keystone State gets its revenge.

The partisan makeup of the state's congressional delegation is about to shift radically, with likely wins by Democratic challengers Scott Wallace (PA-01), Madeleine Dean (PA-04), Mary Scanlon (PA-05), Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06), Susan Wild (PA-07), a guaranteed incumbent vs incumbent win by Democrat Conor Lamb (against walking dead Keith Rothfus) and two toss-ups that could put George Scott and-- God willing-- Jess King (the best candidate running in the state) into Congress instead of Trump rubber stamps Scott Perry and Lloyd Smucker.

On Monday morning Steven Shepard, writing for Politico, reported that the Democratic surge in Pennsylvania is being powered by concerns over healthcare. Fair enough-- though I'd say it's being powered at least as much by disdain for Trump. His greater point though, is that the state that was the 2016 linchpin of Trumpanzee's victory, will be be "ground zero of Democrats’ 2018 comeback." He's going by an AARP poll showing both Sen. Bob Casey and Gov. Tom Wolf with double-digit leads over their GOP challengers and Democrats ahead on the generic congressional ballot.

The top issue for voters in Pennsylvania is health care: Nearly three-in-four, 74 percent, say it’s “very important” to their vote in November, outrating the economy and jobs (72 percent), Social Security (67 percent) and national security and terrorism (65 percent). For voters 50 and older, Social Security (81 percent) only slightly outpaces health care (79 percent).

In the Senate race, Casey leads Rep. Lou Barletta by 15 percentage points, 47 percent to 32 percent. Casey leads Barletta-- a four-term congressman who forged his political identity as an immigration hardliner as the then-mayor of Hazelton, Pa.-- by a similar margin among voters 50 and older, 49 percent to 34 percent.

Casey is one of 10 Senate Democrats seeking reelection this year in a state Trump won in 2016. But like his colleagues in other Midwestern states-- Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Debbie Stabenow in Michigan and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin-- he is a strong favorite for reelection...

Wolf, meanwhile, has a 12-point lead over former state Sen. Scott Wagner, 48 percent to 36 percent. Wagner has struggled to gain traction in his effort to unseat Wolf. The Republican released a Facebook video last week, in which he tells the incumbent, “Gov. Wolf-- let me tell you-- between now and November 6, you better put a catcher’s mask on your face because I’m going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes.”

Which reminds me-- you've probably already heard about Wagner’s utter meltdown on Friday. He stood in front of a billboard highlighting all the folks he sued and asserted, insanely, to Gov. Wolf: "I’m going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes" [video up top]. The billboard was put up by Pennsylvania Spotlight-- a group dedicated to shining a light on extremism and the deep-pocketed special interests acting against the best interest of Pennsylvanians. Obviously, they were delighted that it received national attention and showed what a lunatic and extremist Wagner is. An old friend of mine from Pennsylvania Spotlight, Joshua Henne, wrote this Op-Ed over the weekend showcasing a few more reasons that Wagner is completely unfit.

Scott Wagner needs cash and he needs it now.

That's at least what his most recent email to supporters laid out. Wagner-- who likes to portray himself as a tough guy and always in command-- pleaded, "With more than $10 million of my own money already invested in this race, I am tapped out."

What Wagner conveniently fails to mention is how he recently blew over $2 million investing campaign money into the stock market... and lost. This is far from standard practice. And it's pretty pathetic for a candidate who revolved his entire campaign the notion that he'd be running the state like he runs his business.

Wagner's desperate financial appeal comes on the heels of bellyaching about the recent gubernatorial debate. He's begging for more chances to make his pitch to the public.

As if Wagner hasn't had ample opportunity since announcing his campaign 21 long months ago on the floor of Penn Waste-- the politically connected trash-hauling behemoth he owns.

However, Wagner couldn't possibly have enjoyed a more receptive audience and forum than the one he already participated in, as incredulously, Penn Waste was the sponsor of last week's Chamber debate.

This is simply the latest example in a long litany of Wagner inappropriately and cunningly using his political campaign to benefit his personal bottom line... Some of Wagner's abusive business tactics are already well-documented. Infamously, he sued an 84-year old Springettsbury woman who didn't use Penn Waste's trash services... For years, the occasions of Wagner suing customers has been pegged by the press at a mere "hundreds of people that Penn Waste has sued for nonpayment of trash bills." However, the real number of lawsuits against customers stands at a whopping 6,979 individuals from January 2012 to May 2018 alone, filing over 10,000 total lawsuits.

The public deserves to know the true scope of Wagner's litigious nature at the expense of working families. So, we put up a website at www.PennWasterAlert.com, as well as some billboards laying out the real numbers.

Many Penn Waste lawsuits were filed against people who don't have the means to defend themselves. In some cases, they've been hammered for being late on one lousy bill.Wagner is a model intimidator who sues those without the ability to fight back.

His actions compound financial problems for working families. Moreover, Wagner's heavy-handed practices are predatory, with pressure going beyond the norm of other garbage removal companies in the operating area.

Penn Waste even goes so far as sending sheriffs to customers' homes to harass them.

...His Republican primary opponent, Paul Mango excoriated him, saying "Wagner has a lengthy history as a greedy bully who preys on those in our society who can't fight back. He does this simply to ensure that his personal wealth continues to grow. It should be clear to all that Scott Wagner is not trustworthy and will never put the needs of Pennsylvanians first."

Even though Wagner claims he's "far from an insider," the truth is that, for far too long, Wagner's used his political perch to enrich himself and his business.

Wagner has pocketed millions off municipal contracts and used his time in the state Senate to push legislation aimed at plumping his own piggybank - all at the expense of taxpayers.

Even though Wagner's personal wealth is directly tied to Penn Waste's ability to garner municipal contracts, he refuses to put his business interests in a blind trust. This is obscene, since local governments constitute Penn Waste's current-- and potentially future-- clients.

Moreover, Wagner steadfastly rejects releasing his tax returns. The trash tycoon explained it's because he didn't want Penn Waste workers knowing the full extent of how much he makes off their sweat and toil, lest they'd decide to organize a union to fight for their rights.

Much like President Trump, Wagner measures every step against how it will personally benefit both his ambition and bottom line.

In fact, Wagner embraces the comparison, once going so far as to proclaim "Donald Trump is actually a mini-Scott Wagner." Both men have a history of mistreating and intimidating customers. And both clearly relish frivolously suing vulnerable people who don't have the resources to fight back.

We already have a hot mess down in D.C. with this archetype. Pennsylvanians simply can't afford the same story to play out in Harrisburg, with Wagner taking not just a page, but chapter and verse from Trump's grotesque playbook.

Back to Shepard's Politico piece again. He reminded us that House Democrats "chances to make further gains were turbocharged earlier this year, when the state Supreme Court ordered the implementation of a new congressional-district map. It found the old one, drawn by Republicans after the 2010 election, was a gerrymander so egregious that it violated the state constitution. In the three elections held under the old map-- 2012, 2014 and 2016-- Republicans won 13 of the state’s 18 congressional districts, even in 2012, when Democratic candidates, on aggregate, won more votes than Republicans."

Lots Of Tragedy To Go Around-- Due Process Could Be Very Helpful

In his delineation of the tragedy of Ruben Kihuen, Jon Ralston wrote Monday that it was Reid who elevated "someone with so many known ticking time bombs in his past." Ralston expressed sympathy, not with the Democratic Party establishment or even Kihuen but with so many people who "had reposed faith in and who so many must now re-evaluate. His announcement that he will not run for re-election, as inevitable as August triple-digit temperatures in Las Vegas, is unalterably sad for so many young people, especially Hispanics, who believed in the first DREAMer in Congress... [They] saw Kihuen as a symbol of hope in a Trumpian world where their futures are uncertain. And it wasn’t just DREAMers-- Kihuen has been a heroic figure to many younger Hispanics and others, too, people who saw him as the embodiment of the American Dream. Imagine their nightmare now.

I find some of the rationalizations I have heard whispered-- he was single, women threw themselves at him, the women never said anything, back then-- to be grotesque. I understand denial by those close to him, perhaps. But everyone else needs to open their eyes and see Kihuen for what he is: A playboy-as-predator who has exploited many professional situations with women and caused them to feel he cared only about sleeping with them. He was relentless in his pursuit, not taking “no” for an answer and either not considering or not caring that they were people who were dependent upon him, be it for votes or a salary.

...There are other stories out there. There are women who have experienced Kihuen’s relentless and juvenile attentions, unwanted and parried, who simply do not want to have their stories told. That is their right, and we will apply no pressure on anyone put in a difficult situation by Kihuen or any other elected official who has misused the power dynamic. The women these men have diminished and demeaned have the right to say when and whether their stories are told.

Which brings me to the question of whether Kihuen’s attempt to stave off resignation will work.

Kihuen, too, is a gambler. Just as he bet that none of these women he harassed would ever come forward-- maybe he thought they were thrilled he was coming on to them or believed his superior position would intimidate them-- he is rolling the dice that he can survive for a year with the floodgates not opening.

I thought the New York Times’ Alex Burns put it well, describing what Kihuen and fellow harasser Blake Farenthold are doing as a “plea-bargain,” trying to get their parties to allow them to have the lesser punishment of not running to avoid resigning.

(My guess is that in his current state of delusion Kihuen might actually believe that by March, when filing opens, the Ethics Committee will clear him and he can run again. Denial is powerful when one is clinging to one’s job title for dear life. More on that in a moment.)

The thought is ludicrous that Kihuen can possibly be effective-- as if he ever has been-- when the leaders want him gone and his Democratic colleagues from Nevada have either said he should resign or implied he should.

There was also a post Monday morning from Politico noting that several Democratic senators are urging Al Franken to reverse his resignation. In fact, Joe Manchin "who urged Franken not to step down to begin with-- at least not before he went through an Ethics Committee investigation-- said the Minnesota senator was railroaded by fellow Democrats," calling Gillibrand's lynch party "atrocious." They also noted that Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who issued a statement calling for Franken's resignation, has since told him privately that he regrets doing so."

“I think we acted prematurely, before we had all the facts,” said a third senator who has also called for the resignation, and has since expressed regret directly to Franken. “In retrospect, I think we acted too fast.” The senator asked not to be named because of the political sensitivity of the issue among Democrats.

As we mentioned yesterday, state Senator Daylin Leach-- the front-running candidate for Pat Meehan's suburban Philly seat-- has come under attack and and that attack became more serious as Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat up for reelection-- a weak, insecure, frightened guy, in way over his head, who is deathly afraid of pissing anyone off-- called for Leach to resign from the state Senate. "This disturbing behavior is absolutely unacceptable. Sen. Leach should resign," the governor said in a stinging rebuke of a fellow Democrat. "While he has been a leader on important policy issues, this conduct cannot be excused. As I have said previously, this is not a partisan issue. The lack of adequate structure for victims to report this type of behavior and feel protected is inexcusable, and underscores that Harrisburg’s culture must change." Leach is an old friend. I asked him if he was planning on resigning or withdrawing from the congressional race.

He told me he is "absolutely" staying in the race and absolutely not resigning. "Nobody can make me resign. And I never would. And if anyone wants a different nominee, they are going to have to beat me in a primary. Lets see if they can do that." A couple hours later I got a press release from his office saying "I am taking a step back from the congressional campaign to focus on my family..." Sunday night Daylin sent me a very long, "too long," he told me explanation of what was going on from his perspective. Monday I asked him if I could run it and he said ok. I doubt you'll see anything like it anywhere else.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has released a story which mentions me in connection with the #MeToo movement. I feel compelled to respond. First, I will lay out a chronology of how this story came to be, then I will tell my side of the story, and finally, I will offer some thoughts on where we are now as a country.

In 2014, when I ran for Congress, a woman (Colleen Kennedy) volunteered for my campaign. She worked enthusiastically and the campaign ended without incident. In fact team and I helped her find another job in politics and for some months after the campaign, she continued to express her support for me on social media.

I was therefore surprised when 6 months later, this supporter attacked me on twitter for what she mistakenly believed was me missing a vote on an education bill. She said I was a false progressive and a hypocrite, etc. When I tried to explain, she continued to attack me, so I disengaged from her and have not interacted with her since.

In June of this year, the first press stories about me contemplating a run for Congress in PA-7 appeared. At that time, out of the blue, I began hearing about a whisper campaign claiming that I was a sexual predator. Such whisper campaigns, while insidious, are not uncommon in politics. When I first ran for office in 2002 there was a whisper campaign that I was an anti-semite. Given that I was a life-long practicing Jew, (albeit with a non-Jewish last name) this was easy to disprove.

After several weeks, we heard from numerous people that my former supporter from 2014 was behind this. She did not claim that I had ever done anything to her, and in fact I was never alone with her in my life. This was just something she believed.

She proceeded to approach numerous press outlets and tell them that there were all kinds of sexual harassment complaints filed against me with the Senate, and she encouraged reporters to file “Right to Know” (RTK) requests to access said complaints.

Despite this former supporter’s representations, the answers to the RTK requests revealed that no ethical, civil, criminal or employment complaints had ever been filed. Most of the media then abandoned the story.

The exception was a pair of reporters from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Despite clear evidence that their “source” was not credible, they persisted and filed a second RTK request for the names of all “employees, interns or contractors” who had ever worked for me.

The Inquirer then began calling select former staffers and asking leading questions with no basis in fact. For example, “Did Daylin Leach ever do or say anything that made you uncomfortable?” If they said no, they were asked “Did he ever make jokes that made you uncomfortable.” If the answer was still no, they asked, “Did he make jokes that COULD make someone uncomfortable?” If still no, then “Would it surprise you to hear that others were uncomfortable?”

I know these things because many of the staffers, colleagues and political opponents they contacted, called me immediately afterwards asking me what the calls were all about, and to tell me word-for-word what was asked. The people who called were unanimous in their feeling that The Inquirer reporters were really hoping to hear something unseemly about me.

It is important to note that at this point, no one had come forward and complained that they were either the victim or had first hand knowledge of anything improper I had done.

If someone files a suit, or holds a press conference, it is perfectly legitimate to contact that person to check out the story. But what The Inquirer did in attempting to manufacture a scandal was so antithetical to basic journalistic ethics that I, and people I told about it, found it hard to believe.

Also since this started in June, I had been hearing that my primary opponent, Dan Muroff, was pushing the whisper campaign started by my former supporter. Several people called me to say that members of Mr. Muroff’s team and Mr. Muroff himself were calling them and saying versions of “something bad is going to come out about Daylin, so you had better support Dan.” [Ed- I might add at this point that, s an officer of a PAC, I've heard exactly the same thing from Muroff supporters and have heard the same thing from several campaigns in other parts of the country about other candidates trying to take advantage of what I sometimes refer to as "The Terror."]

We then became aware of the very close personal relationship between my former supporter and the Muroff campaign. Specifically, it was relayed to us that my former supporter and Dan Muroff’s campaign manager were “best friends.”

Concurrent with The Inquirer filing their initial RTK request, the Muroff campaign and my former supporter started referencing The Inquirer as where the damaging story about me was going to appear (despite the fact that there was no appropriate reason that either of them would have been notified of the RTK request).

I can’t express how personally painful the Muroff connection to this story was for my wife Jen and me. We had thought of Dan as a very close friend. We had been to each other’s homes (and his boat) and hung out as couples many times, and I had always supported Dan when he ran for office previously. This year, Dan chose to move into district I’ve lived in for 19 years to run for Congress, which he has every legal right to do. But he was very angry that I was running for the same seat.

Despite calling many of my former employees, The Inquirer was still coming up empty. In fact, the

I never claimed to be anybody’s Meow. But I knew I always treated my employees well. That’s why I have one of the lowest turnover rates in the Senate, and why many of my employees have stayed with me for well over a decade.

Over the course of the 31 years since I graduated law school, I have had more than 300 female employees, interns, and students. Not once has any ethics complaint, lawsuit, or criminal charge ever been filed against me. Further, nobody has ever complained to me, or quit a job, or dropped a class because of any conduct I engaged in.

This does not mean that I was a perfect person or that it’s not possible that someone could have disliked me, or felt unhappy with something I said or did. Certainly in the course of normal human interaction, very few people never say the wrong thing or are never perceived as annoying. But it seems like the bar which triggers some sort of full investigation by a respected newspaper should be higher.

Eventually after calling numerous people, the Inquirer notified my office that there were “allegations”. As presented to us, there were 4 allegations. They were all anonymous. The reporters wouldn’t tell me who was accusing me, or when specifically the incidents happened, or even what exactly they were about. Here is what I was told:

1. Someone said that in 2008, at the campaign office I told a joke referencing a wet T-Shirt contest as a fundraiser.
2. Also in 2008, also at the campaign office, there was a discussion of the attractiveness of Hollywood actresses, and I had offered my opinion.
3. In 2012, I had said “something” that “made a DNC volunteer mad” at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte. Said what? To who? Where? What context? The reporter indicated she didn’t know any of that information.
4. An unnamed attendee at a political fundraiser who did not work for me, said that during a conversation about getting petitions signed, I had momentarily touched her leg, not in a sexual way, but that she had felt uncomfortable nonetheless.

It is important to know that the RTK requests did not provide the names of the people described above as the RTK does not cover campaigns. It only applies to state employees. These were not state employees. So how did they find these people? It turns out that they are connected to the Muroff campaign and my former supporter.

In fact, 3 of these 4 allegations were from Aubrey Montgomery, a woman who now claims she was very upset about my sense of humor when she worked on my campaign in 2008, but who has continued to donate to me, come to my house for parties, give me advice, and pretend she was my friend in the years since.

I would now like to respond to these allegations. As I see it, they fall into 2 categories. The first one is humor.

I find it ironic that the Pennsylvania media loves to write stories tut-tutting about my humor. These same reporters have enthusiastically invited me to raise them money by performing comedy at their annual charity Gridiron Dinner for the past 9 years. The lead Inquirer reporter on this story has come to see me perform many times.

Some may remember that a reporter named Mario Cattabiani wrote a long expose about my humor 12 years ago. Yet after one of my gridiron performances, he took the time to call me and say that I was the “funniest comedian he had ever seen.”

Those who know me know that humor is an integral part of my personality. Frankly, it literally saved my life during a difficult childhood. I never met my father who ran off before I was born. My mother did her best, but had a lot of issues and was not a particularly engaged parent. I was placed in a series of foster homes which were often neglectful and even abusive. It was only by seeing the world through an absurdist lens was I able to cope.

I also think humor is a force for good in a very dark world. It helps us get through tough times, and is invaluable to me as an elected official. I am one of the most requested speakers in the state because I give a good speech, which is usually, in part, funny. Humor diffuses tension and makes people feel included. It’s one of my few traits of which I am unambiguously proud (as opposed to my hairline, singing voice, pole-vaulting ability, etc.)

The vast majority of my humor is not in any way sexual. Like most people, i joke around about food, or New Jersey, or the news or something Donald Trump said, or…New Jersey. But I am not pure. I have on occasion laughed at or told off-color jokes. I will admit to liking Sarah Silverman, or South Park or Chris Rock. But while I laugh at that sort of thing, that is not the brand of humor I usually use.

My humor is never mean. It is never directed at someone present. It is mostly self-deprecating, and if anyone is the butt of my jokes it’s almost always me. (or Trump, but…I mean..come on!). I’d also note that my jokes have gotten tamer over the years. Maybe its just a function of aging.

As for the specific jokes allegedly told in the campaign office, I honestly don’t remember them. It’s a lot of years to remember a joke. And frankly, without any context, or even hint as to who else was present, they don’t sound like things I’d say. But putting all of that aside, are silly jokes told in the presence of other adults a decade ago really worthy of an expose in the Philadelphia Inquirer?

The other allegation involves me touching someone’s leg. And to be clear, I do not know this person. She did not work for me. I have had no contact with her before or since. I am told I had a brief conversation with her about getting ballot petitions signed. As for touching the leg, I have absolutely no memory of this conversation or any interaction with her leg.

That said, as a general matter, it is possible that I touched her leg. I do sometimes touch people, men and women, when I am talking to them. I might place a hand on a shoulder, or clasp a fore-arm, or punctuate the end of a conversation with a pat on the back or the knee and a farewell. Some of you have seen the recent viral video of Representative Matt Bradford touching Representative Darryl Metcalfe’s arm, and Rep. Metcalfe freaking out.

Well, I sometimes do the same thing (the Bradford thing, not the Metcalfe). I always viewed it as a way to connect, and often do it without even noticing. Again, I have never received a complaint.

Further, I will concede that it is not all that difficult to tell me and George Clooney apart. Yet, for whatever reason, I am touched all the time. My shoulder or arm is clasped, strangers and acquaintances put their arms around me for photographs, I am hugged, kissed and patted on the back a number of times every day when I am out in public. I never interpret these touches as sexual, because they aren’t.

But maybe this woman didn’t like some man touching her leg. And she has every right to not like it. It’s her body. But there was nothing sexual about it, and nobody alleges there was. In fact, the reporter specifically told me that nobody alleged that I touched them in a sexual way.

And again, why this is a story in the newspaper is not clear. I am far less touchy than many other people we all know (see e.g. Joe Biden). And if we are doing a story on everyone who ever touches anyone else in politics, or in life, the Inquirer will have to add a new daily section to the paper.

As someone who has been dragged through this for several months, I’d like to conclude by offering some thoughts on where we are.

First, to be clear, the recent discussion of sexual assault is long overdue. Harvey Weinstein is a monster. He has raped or assaulted scores of women. He should be in prison. Kevin Spacey, Roy Moore and Donald Trump appear to be serial predators. No person should have to endure or fear this sort of assault, not only on their body, but on their dignity and their very worth as a human being.

I have spent my life fighting to change the laws to reflect our highest aspirations for gender equality. Equal Pay legislation, access to emergency contraception, contraception equity, the banning of shackling of pregnant prisoners, and mandatory paid family leave are all my bills. All of my employees who have children may take 3 months of paid maternity (or paternity leave). If you search Youtube, you will see my repeated and passionate floor arguments against efforts to restrict women’s reproductive choices.

I hire and promote women aggressively. Women have been my Chief-of-Staff on the legislative side, and four of my campaign mangers on the political side. I have supported groups like Emerge to increase the number of women elected to office in our Commonwealth. I am married to an incredibly strong woman who is among the most talented psychologists practicing. Our daughter Brennan, at 16 has already taken on the national right-wing attack machine and is currently in Washington DC as a US Senate Page.

Obviously, a good history on women’s rights is no justification for bad conduct. But I do believe in assessing allegations as thin and obscure as the ones against me, intent is important. And whether one has a history of respecting or disrespecting women is relevant.

However, I worry that there are some off-notes about the current frenzy over sexual misbehavior. We want to stop predatory and demeaning behavior. We don’t want to stop all normal human interaction. We don’t want to metaphorically turn every humorous quip or innocent pat into an unpardonable crime.

If a man or a woman is uncomfortable with a non-sexual squeeze of the arm or an offered high-5, then they should feel free to say so and that should be respected. But the default option should not be that men and women view each other as radioactive. We shouldn’t all wear Hazmat suits to work for fear that the slightest arm-brush will trigger an investigation.

Men who have done horrible things to women, using force, or groping or persistently propositioning or sending unwanted obscene photos, etc., should be held to account. But having men steeped in terror, staying up nights wracking their brains for who in the last 40 years they may have told the wrong joke to, or who might have misinterpreted a congratulatory hug on the receipt of good news as a sexual come-on does not help women. Fear is not respect. And avoidance is not equality.

We must also remember that our entire system of justice is founded on the notion of due process. Credible accusations of serious misconduct must be taken seriously. But blind belief of either side in a dispute is not a part of our justice system for a reason. Remember, in the context of the current discussion, some of those accused will be our brothers, sons, fathers. They deserve to be heard too.

What I’m saying is that exposure and reckoning have their place, but so does proportionality and a recognition of how people actually live their daily lives. I’ve been to many work-places, not just my own. People pretty much are the same in all of them. They like to be friends, or at least friendly with their co-workers. They like to laugh and feel connected. They want to feel safe within a bond of trust. And trust comes from seeing your colleagues as real people.

I wish the media was more responsible and focused on how our elections are being stolen or what its like to live in deep poverty, or maybe how our current economic policy disproportionately harms women, and less on gotcha stories designed to earn clicks. I wish they covered actual stories rather than tried to create sensational ones. But I can’t control that.

What I can do is refuse to let a newspaper, which allowed itself to be weaponized by a rival political campaign stop me from fighting for what I’ve fought for all my life. And that’s exactly what I will do.

Why The Race For Pennsylvania Lt. Governor Is Important

In 2012, one of Blue America's favorite candidates was Aryanna Strader, a young woman from Pennsylvania running for a pretty red seat. The DCCC refused to get behind her campaign and Joe Pitts, her GOP opponent, spent $1,208,911 to her $85,079. The biggest expenditure by an outside group was this truck from Blue America. Aryanna didn't win that year, although Pitts soon after decided to retire from Congress. And yesterday Aryanna-- now Aryanna Berringer-- declared that she's running for Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania.

Mike Stack has the job now. He and his wife were found out through an Inspector General’s investigation to be verbally abusing their house staff in a mansion that is provided to them by the taxpayers. They were also repeatedly demanding that their security detail (assigned PA State Troopers) break the law so that they wouldn’t have to sit in traffic. We wouldn’t want to inconvenience the Stacks now would we?

In an interview after the report was made public, Stack attributed all of these abuses to what he called a “Stack moment” of which he was known for having over the time not only as Lt. Governor but as a state Senator from Philadelphia.

One of the other revelations of the IG report was that the Stacks billed the taxpayers over $4,000 for hotel stays in Philadelphia. Remember the last paragraph? The Stacks live in Philly.

The Stacks are the epitome of how conservatives tag Democrats as “Limousine Liberals.” And right now, Governor Tom Wolf is considered vulnerable in his 2018 re-election. The last thing he needs is a running mate to drag him down. It’s probably why Gov. Wolf ordered the Inspector General investigation in the first place and has since removed the Stacks’ security detail; house staff can only do their work at assigned times under supervision. It’s like the Stacks had a Protection From Abuse order placed on them by Wolf.


PA Lt. Gov. Mike Stack Better Watch His Six
-by Aryanna Berringer

I first want to thank all of you who are apart of the DWT community for taking some time today to learn more about me and my decision to run for Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania.

Over the past several months I have been watching not only the unfolding of our current Democratic Lt. Governor and how he has taken advantage of his position, but the actions of politicians on both sides of the aisle. It’s hard to miss President Trump. I have to say, it is one thing for me to become frustrated when a Republican’s behavior is corrupt or without morals, but I am even more disappointed when it is a member of my own political party. And that’s where I find myself now in launching this campaign to unseat an incumbent. This is bigger than Lt. Gov. Mike Stack. This is about taking on a system that serves as a catalyst for abusing the public’s trust.

A bit about me to give you a better idea of where I’ve come from.

I grew up the youngest of ten children to a mom who was a waitress (actually she still is; waiting tables part time to make ends meet at 74) and my dad who was a hotel maintenance worker. We were the working poor. I am also a kid who unfortunately had to visit my dad in jail for some poor choices on his part-- that plexiglass divider and black telephone are etched into my memory. But they were learning moments.

As a child of parents in poverty I am forever grateful for programs like the National Free School Lunch and Food Stamps. And as a teenager of parents without health insurance, thanks to funding at Planned Parenthood, I was able to have my first women’s health wellness exam.

All of these experiences and help from my community influenced the person I was becoming.

However, it was now time for me to give back to my country.

Two months after the attacks of 9/11, I joined the U.S. Army at the age of 18. I was under no illusion. I knew I was most likely going to be deployed somewhere in the world. And in 2003, as part of the XVIII Airborne Corp we were basically dropped into Jordan where we, based out of an undisclosed location just miles from the border with Iraq, got to work. It was in that frontline and forward position that I would be on the day we invaded.

Now to fast forward, I am the mother of three amazing kids, am an IT Project Manager and run my own non-profit called American Nutritional Security that is designed to improve nutrition in schools and military installations as a matter of national security (Think President Truman and the creation of the school lunch program, but now we are too fat to fight).

All of this culminates to my new mission of becoming Lt. Governor. For those reading this who are unfamiliar with Pennsylvania governing, the Lt. Gov. is elected independently from the Governor in the Primary. The person who holds this seat traditionally becomes one of the most underutilized executives and it is in large part due to either a lack of vision or a reluctance to truly engage in service to the Commonwealth. Maybe others see it as a stepping stone to running for higher office so they go into it with the mindset of not making any waves. That’s not me. I wouldn’t be here today if I ever took any of those paths.

I will always present my policy ideas and concepts to the public in an attempt to make serving as Lt. Governor a productive partner with the people Pennsylvania.

At the core of my campaign, and if you follow us you will hear and see us repeat this often, we are going at this endeavor with a clear message:Join Aryanna. Help others. Build community.

If we can end each day on this campaign knowing we’ve achieved that, we’ll win in more ways than at just the ballot box.

Gov. Tom Wolf (D-PA)-- Very Much NOT Like Gov. Rick Snyder (R-Flint)

The first time I spoke with Tom Wolf was in March, 2013 when he was considered a longshot to replace Pennsylvania's Republican Governor Tom Corbett. It only took a few minutes of listening to him talk before I realized that he was the guy-- the guy who could stop conservaDem Allyson Schwartz from getting the Democratic nomination, the one who could retire Corbett and the one who could show Pennsylvanians what it was like to have a good governor. (Anyone remember Milton Shapp?) Anyway, Tom did a guest post for DWT explaining who he is and how he wanted to approach governing Pennsylvania.

He is very much the benevolent businessman-- reminded me of my grandfather in that way, who was both a dedicated socialist and the owner of a coat manufacturing factory-- who had a reasonable set of progressive principles he felt would be good for Pennsylvania. The voters agreed. He easily triumphed over the establishment-favored Schwartz-- 58% to 18% (that's the race where Katie McGinty, the Schumercrat running against Joe Sestak, got 8% of the vote)-- and then went on to oust Corbett 1,920,355 (55%) to 1,575,511 (45%). Obama took Pennsylvania 2 years earlier against Romney 52-47%.

He has his own blog now, which he uses to keep Pennsylvanians informed about what he's doing and why. When the Republican-controlled state legislature (Senate has 31 Republicans and 19 Democrats and the House has 120 Republicans and 83 Democrats) decided to cut the state's public education budget, Governor Wolf vetoed the plan. This is his post from New Years Eve:

Why I Vetoed The GOP's Plan to Cut Education
by Governor Tom Wolf

Earlier this week, I used my line item veto power to veto the Republican plan to cut education by $95 million, while also taking action to ensure that schools received money owed to them through December 31.

There are many reasons why this budget is wrong for Pennsylvania, but these are the big reasons why I vetoed part of the GOP’s plan:

1. The Republican budget underfunds education.

• Instead of finally providing funding for our schools, Republicans cut $95 million for local school districts. After $1 billion in budget cuts to our schools over the past several years, this budget makes it even worse.

• Republicans continue to refuse to adequately fund Pre-K through 12 education and their budget fails to fund over $305 million in school construction reimbursements. The Republican’s failure to provide school construction funding to local school districts and the commonwealth’s inability to responsibly issue debt-- which is a result of past Republican budgets built on gimmicks that led to a multi-billion dollar deficit-- will lead to a direct cost to the school districts. This will wipe out any marginal funding increases for local school districts.

• The Republicans did not pass legislation to provide funding for Pennsylvania’s institutions of higher learning including Pitt, Penn State, Temple, Lincoln, and the Penn Vet School, leaving them completely without state funding.

• They did not pass a fiscal code or a school code.

2. The Republican budget does not balance.

• This budget spends $30.3 billion dollars without sufficient revenues to pay for it. Assuming that we would certify the current year revenue estimate at the amount recommended by the Independent Fiscal Office earlier this month, if I signed this bill, the commonwealth would end the year over a half a billion dollars out of balance.

• There is already $2.3 billion structural deficit, and the Republican budget increases it even more. It will lead to more credit downgrades and fiscal instability in Pennsylvania. Bottom line: It is not responsible.

For the first time in years, we have an opportunity to change the status quo. We have a real chance to make historic investments in schools, truly balance the budget, and begin to fix the deficit. Now, the Republican legislature must return to work immediately and pass a real budget for Pennsylvania.

What the governor wants out of this is for the Republican legislative leaders to live up to the November deal he worked out with them as part of a $30.8 billion spending and tax deal. It includes about $500 million more than the bill he vetoed and calls for a 6% spending increase and about a billion dollars in new taxes. The Senate had already passed it 43-7 when extremists in the House decided to flex their muscles.

Pennsylvania's Roadmap For Progressives Across America Who Are Fed Up With State Democratic Party Dysfunction

"This state's Democratic Party is like the Mickey Mouse Club, only with less cohesion and direction." There may be a few states where that dollop of reality is just plain false. But the state Democratic Parties overall are a collection of pointless messes, run by self-serving men and women with small minds, pedestrian outlooks and ironically big egos. There are almost no state Democratic Parties that aren't pitifully dysfunctional. And the first time I ever spoke with now-Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, he gave me the distinct impression that his confidence in Pennsylvania's Democratic Party had been replaced with pity and disgust.

Now that Wolf, despite his party's functional incompetence, is a successful and popular governor, some get the distinct impression that he's ignoring the state party and replacing their functions with his own political action group, Rebuild Pennsylvania.

The stated mission of Rebuild Pennsylvania is to promote Gov. Tom Wolf's agenda and support candidates allied with him... Rebuild Pennsylvania aims to fill a vacuum left by the moribund state Democratic Party. The governor effectively severed ties with the party when he ran for office.

Pennsylvania has long been a swing state-- at least in the eyes of delusional Republicans. Lazy conservative pollsters always predict tight races that could go either way, even pollsters who are reporting in October and November-- as they prepare to be seen with egg all over their faces. For example, Susquehanna Polling predicted, a month before Election Day 2012, a 47-47% dead heat between Obama and Romney. Obama beat Romney 52-47%, just as he had beaten McCain 55-44% in 2008. Bush lost the state in 2000 and in 2004 when, respectively, Gore and then Kerry each scored 51%. And Bill Clinton beat incumbent George H.W. Bush in 1992 by around half a million votes, 45.15- 36.12%. Four years later Obama beat Bob Dole in Pennsylvania 49.17-39.9%. The last time a Republican presidential candidate won Pennsylvania was in 1988, when George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by around 100,000 votes out of 4.5 million cast in the state.

The state Democrats managed to negate all these statewide wins by losing the state legislature-- right before it was time to redraw the congressional districts. That catastrophic gerrymander alone should have led to the firing of the whole upper echelon of the party. Even though Democrats were winning statewide-- and not just presidential elections (in 2012 Robert Casey won a U.S. Senate seat 54-45% and last year Wolf ousted Governor Tom Corbett 55-45%, a 10-point spread)-- Republicans gerrymandered the state legislative districts so harshly that they, the minority party, control the state House and the state Senate. The GOP-drawn districts yielded them a 30-20 majority in the Senate and a 120-83 majority in the House. Demographics and voting patterns would predict either a 9-9 split in congressional seats for the state or a 10-8 split favoring the Democrats. But the redrawn congressional map gives the Democrats not 10 seats or even 9, but a shockingly low 5 congressional seats. That's what the Pennsylvania Democratic Party's incomprehensible incompetence bestowed on the state's working families!

Currently, the state party is working with Chuck Schumer and Jon Tester at the DSCC to sabotage-- for petty personal and partisan reasons-- the senatorial campaign of former Congressman Joe Sestak. They would rather see Pat Toomey reelected than back an independent-minded thinker like Sestak-- a former admiral who doesn't kiss politician's filthy, corrupt butts.