Good Riddance To Rubbish Democrats! We're Better Off Without Them-- And We Do NOT Need Them

The screenshot above is from ProgressivePunch. It shows where the 9 worst Democrats meet a bunch of Republicans who sometimes stand up to Trump. The worst of the Democrats-- Blue Dogs Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Joe Cunningham (SC), Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Kendra Horn (OK) vote far more frequently with the GOP than with the Democrats on crucial roll calls. These Democrats muck up the party brand and always drag the congressional party right-ward. Brindisi particularly is like a whiny 8 year old always bitching how progressive votes will lose him his seat and that if he votes against them, Democrats in his district will turn on him but that if he votes for them, conservatives in his district will vote against him. Let's face it; we would all be better off without Anthony Brindisi. And without Van Drew, Cunningham and Horn to boot. They are a detriment, not an asset, in Congress.

Yesterday, NBC News focused on Cunningham, who represents a red South Carolina district which includes much of Charleston. He won it last year when the GOP kicked out Mark Sanford in a primary and replaced him with a deranged Trumpist Cunningham managed to beat 145,455 (50.7%) to 141,473 (49.3%). Although Cunningham came close in Dorchester and Berkeley counties, his victory was all about winning Charleston County (which is where the Democrats live). This cycle there are at least half a dozen Republicans competing to take him on. Last cycle he outspent Republican Katherine Arrington $2,388,237 to $1,563,050 and so far this cycle his has outraged his perspective Republican opponents: Only 5 have raised any money so far:

• Joe Cunningham (D)- $1,770,525
• Nancy Mace (R)- $487,199
• Katherine Landing (R)- $352,833 (79% self-funded)
• Mike Covert (R)- $146,733
• Chris Cox (R)- $89,735
• Phil Norris (R)- $28 (100% self-funded)

What NBC News wanted to know is how worried Cunningham should be? After all, Obama lost the district twice, and althoughTrump didn't do as well as either McCain or Romney, he still beat Hillary 53.5% to 40.4%. And, it was his opposition to Sanford that lost the former governor and incumbent congressman his reelection. Reporter Lauren Egan wrote that Cunningham is counting on the "all politics is local adage" still being true in the Age of Trump. When Cunningham reluctantly voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry at the last minute-- after opposing it for months-- he said, "Today’s vote is not a vote on impeachment. It is not even a vote to approve of the impeachment inquiry. And as I’ve stated multiple times over and over again, I have yet to make up my mind about impeachment."

[N]ational Republicans are wagering that the House inquiry, which is likely to force Cunningham to cast a public “yes” or “no” vote on whether to impeach Trump, could cost him his re-election.

“The Democrats’ obsession with impeaching and removing President Trump from office will cost Joe Cunningham his seat in November,” said Camille Gallo, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a statement to NBC News.

Political strategists on both sides of the aisle say Trump-district Democrats like Cunningham have a delicate balance to strike. On one hand, he risks turning off a liberal base that is itching to see Trump go down. On the other hand, if he comes across as overly enthusiastic about impeaching the president, he could alienate some independent and Republican voters who were critical to his winning coalition in 2018.

Cunningham needs to get Democrats out to the polls in record numbers and persuade Independents to vote for him. He doesn't need Republican votes. NBC should know better. Besides, most voters in the district told NBC that impeachment isn't a big issue for them-- at least not yet. They're more interested in how Cunningham voted on the minimum wage-- against it-- than on the impeachment inquiry.

A right-wing website, the American Spectator-- on the other hand, sees impeachment as defeating Cunningham and many of the other congressmembers from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. David Catron predicts that a vote to impeach will cost them their seats. He points out that the Republicans need only flip 19 seats to win back the majority. He left out one word: net-- they need to win a net of 19 seats. A more likely outcome is that they win 5 or 6 Trump districts and lose 40 others. Bad net for them.

He focused on 7 seats-- a stretch:

Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-SC): In 2018, Cunningham beat a weak opponent by fewer than 4,000 votes in South Carolina’s 1st District. During his campaign, and until just recently, he spoke of impeachment in the following terms: “I’ve warned members of my own party that a partisan rush to impeach the president would be bad for the country.” Last Tuesday, however, he announced that he would vote for the resolution. Like most of these faux moderates, he will tell his constituents that Thursday’s vote merely affirmed an ongoing investigation. This will not mollify the voters to whom he so brazenly lied. In a district that the president won by 13 points in 2016, Congressman Cunningham is a dead Democrat walking.

Rep. Max Rose (D-NY): Rose defeated Republican Dan Donovan in 2018 in New York City’s last Republican stronghold, the 11th District. Like Cunningham, he told his constituents he was against impeachment. In fact, he wrote an op-ed that included the following denunciation of any such course of action: “Impeachment will not improve the lives of the hardworking Staten Islanders and South Brooklynites that I fight for every day.” But Congressman Rose had an impeachment epiphany after he arrived in Washington. The president won NY-11 by 10 points in 2016. With Trump at the top of the ticket again in 2020, plus a strong Republican opponent backed by the NRCC, Representative Rose is very likely a goner.

Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK): Horn narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Steve Russell in Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District, a major upset in a state dominated by the GOP. Her margin was painfully thin, and her victory was no doubt facilitated by her alleged opposition to impeachment. As recently as a month ago, she was still trying to have it both ways when talking to her constituents: “While I didn’t support an impeachment inquiry, I certainly know that these are serious allegations that have to be investigated.” Yet when Thursday arrived and she had the opportunity to keep her promise or cave to political pressure, she opted to betray the voters who elected her. Rep. Horn won her seat by a mere 1.4 percent in a district Trump carried by 14 points in 2016. She’ll be history after 2020.

Xochitl Torres Small (D-NM): Torres Small is yet another candidate who ran in 2018 as a different kind of Democrat and eked out a narrow victory over Republican Yvette Herrell in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District. Small did suggest a creative way to dodge the resolution: “The president’s conversation with the Ukrainian president must be investigated.… Designating this as an impeachment inquiry, though, has led some in the public to believe that a conclusion has been reached while … facts are still being gathered.” Yet she kept her toe on the party line during Thursday’s vote. Torres Small won her House seat by 1.8 percent in a district Trump won by 10 points. She should update her résumé.

Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-NY): Brindisi defeated Republican Claudia Tenney to win New York’s 22nd District and has always claimed to be averse to impeachment. After the fabled phone call between presidents Trump and Zelensky, however, his position began to evolve: “The thought that any government official, especially our commander-in-chief, would hold up foreign aid to an ally and suggest they investigate a political opponent, is a grave and troubling accusation. It is clear that this administration needs to provide answers.” Inevitably, he voted for Thursday’s resolution. In 2018 Brindisi won by less than two points in a district President Trump won by more than 15 points. He’ll be crushed in 2020.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA): In 2018, Cartwright fought off a challenge by Republican John Chrin in Pennsylvania’s 8th District. Cartwright has, unlike the other alleged moderates, not been coy about his support for impeachment. As early as September, he was pretty much committed: “We need to get to the bottom of these serious allegations through comprehensive impeachment proceedings.” The overall ideological bent of Cartwright’s district is difficult to gauge because it was redrawn in 2018 by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania pursuant to a gerrymandering lawsuit. It is, however, located in a part of the state that the president won by double digits in 2016. Cartwright probably won’t survive 2020.

Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME): Golden represents Maine’s 2nd District, despite his failure to win the most votes on Election Day in 2018. Pursuant to Maine’s ranked-choice voting, he was declared the “winner” several days after the polls closed. He has temporized on the impeachment resolution for some time, but finally caved to pressure from his caucus the day before the vote: “While I disagreed with the initial decision to open the impeachment inquiry, it is clear that the investigation has confirmed information contained in the whistleblower complaint.” Trump won Maine’s 2nd District by more than 10 points in 2018, so it’s a pretty good bet that Golden will be departing the House after the 2020 election.

In addition to all these “moderate” Democrats ensconced in districts where President Trump won by double digits, a number occupy districts that he won by more than six points: Rep. Ben McAdams (D-UT) won Utah’s 4th District by 694 votes in 2018. Trump carried UT-4 by seven points in 2016. Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-NY) eked out a victory in his first attempt at New York’s 19th District in 2018. Trump carried NY-19 by seven points in 2016. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) narrowly won her first term in Michigan’s 8th District in 2018. Trump won MI-8 by seven points in 2016. Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ) won New Jersey’s 3rd District by 1.3 points in 2018. President Trump carried NJ-3 by more than six points in 2016.

And the beat goes on. In addition to the 12 listed above, there are 18 more Democrats clinging to districts that Trump won in 2016. That brings the total to 30. As noted above, the Republicans need to flip slightly more than half of these to retake the House. Moreover, the GOP is awash in campaign cash. As Open Secrets reports, “RNC continues to dwarf DNC in fundraising.” This means that the GOP project of retaking the House will enjoy three major advantages-- a target-rich environment, the ability to fund any campaign that shows real promise, and the moral high ground associated with defeating an attempt to oust a president whose faults just do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

All of this brings us back to Thursday’s hyper-partisan vote and the resolution that purports to lay out the framework for the next phase of the “impeachment inquiry” launched by fiat during a news conference last month. This resolution, departing from 150 years of historical precedent, endows the House Intelligence Committee with extraordinary power over the inquiry, codifies Adam Schiff’s closed-door hearings, severely limits the powers of the Republican minority, and violates the president’s right to due process. The Democrats whose districts were won by Trump in 2016 have signed their own political death warrants by voting for this tawdry resolution. Execution day will be November 3, 2020.

Matt Cartwright looks safe-- as do Slotkin, Delgado, Rose and Golden. Catron makes himself look like a fool and a party tool by writing that "Cartwright probably won’t survive 2020." It's wishful GOP thinking, not anything related to actual reality. Cartwright is well-liked and respected by his constituents. Last year the GOP put up a self-funding bankster, John Chrin, and Cartwright beat him 135,603 (54.6%) to 112,563 (45.4%) inside the new district boundaries. Cartwright raised $2,396,418 while Chrin wrote himself a check for $1,687,182-- 74% of the total $2,276,322 he spent trying to unseat Cartwright. The NRCC put another $625,778 used to smear Cartwright and it didn't do a bit of good. So far this cycle, no Republican has raised a dime against Cartwright and no serious candidate has stepped forward. Cartwright has $1,047,665 in his campaign war-chest. The idiot Catron should run. Meanwhile, though, please consider contributing to Cartwright's campaign by clicking on the worthy incumbents thermometer on the right. He's the only one of the Trump district Democrats we're helping raise money for and he's the only one of them with a progressive voting record.

Republicans Are Mostly Playing Defense In House Races-- Except For A Few Blue Districts That Trump Won

Matt Cartwright deserves reelection

Over the weekend, Politico ran an essay about how Republicans will try to make up for expected losses in the 2018 midterms by targeting Democrats in Trump districts. Reporter Elena Schneider kicked off her piece by focusing on progressive champion Matt Cartwright. Matt's district (PA-17) stretches from Carbondale to Scranton and Wilkes-Barre and the south to Pocono Summit, the Delaware Water Gap and Nazareth and as far south as Easton in the east and Freemansburg in the west. It was gerrymandered to shove as many traditional blue collar Democratic voters into one misshapen district as possible to protect 3 Republican-leaning seats-- PA-10 (Tom Marino), PA-11 (Lou Barletta) and PA-15 (Charlie Dent). Last year the PVI was D+4 and Cartwright was reelected 155,766 (53.9%) to 132,969 (42.7%). But Hillary's status quo message was the exact opposite of what voters there wanted and Trump creamed her 53.4% to 43.3%-- in a district Obama had taken 55.4% to 43.3% four years earlier. The swing was unique to Hillary and Trump and was unrelated to Matt Cartwright, a consistent and effective advocate for working families.

When Schneider writes that "Trump had painted Cartwright’s turf red beneath his feet" she was being overly dramatic and... basically incorrect, even if the numbers people at Cook now give the district an R+1 PVI. Still, the Republican Party is targeting Matt in a big way this cycle. They've recruited a self-funding Wall Street hack, John Chrin, a former managing director at JP Morgan Chase who lives on millionaires' row in swanky Short Hills, New Jersey-- a Wall Street company town. He claims he can run in PA-17 because his paternal grandfather owns a company that owns a landfill in Northampton County. Chrin's mansion is about a two hour drive--more if there's traffic on the I-80-- from Scranton and Wilkes-Barre in the district. He lives in Leonard Lance's district although I suppose he can move into his grandfather's company's landfill if the commute to PA-17 gets too arduous for him. Trump's tax scam is tailor-made for people exactly like John Chrin. On the right is the ActBlue "Trump District Progressives" thermometer. It's important; please take a look and contribute what you can. So far this cycle Cartwright has raised $894,267 to Chrin's $667,266, although, notably, $563,715 of what Chrin "raised" came from a check he wrote to his own campaign. Cartwright told Schneider that "the real question is: Why did I do well there too? Why did 30,000 Trump voters also vote for Matt Cartwright? I think the reason is that I focus on jobs and wages, better jobs and better wages." Progressive Punch awarded Cartwright an "A" rating. He's the caucus whip for the Congressional Progressive Caucus and vice chair of the Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition Caucus.

Some of the other Democrats the GOP is targeting aren't worth the effort to defend. Nationally, Democrats would be better off without Blue Dog Cheri Bustos who is looking to rise in the party leadership where she can spread her repulsive Republican-lite approach to policy. Bustos is one of the worst Democrats in the House. Her lifetime crucial vote score is 50%, indicating she votes as much against important progressive legislation as for it. ProgressivePunch gave her an "F." Her district is in the northwest corner of the state and pretty blue. Obama beat McCain 60-39% and beat Romney 57-41%. Clinton was too much to swallow and Trump eked out a narrow win, 47.4% to 46.7%. The PVI dropped from D+7 to D+3. Bustos won reelection with 60% and-- despite trying to gin up contributions by whining how endangered she is, she has no serious competition. The NRCC candidate, Mark Kleine has raised $508,150 ($135,000 self-funded) to Bustos' $1,273,349. She has $2,363,367 cash on hand. Don't waste your money giving her any contributions-- unless you like Democrats from the Republican wing of the party and want to see her build power.

Another crap Democrat, Wisconsin New Dem Ron Kind, is also in the NRCC's sights. His district borders on Bustos'; he was first elected in 1996 and has been a pretty dependably bad vote, although not as bad as she is, but also with an "F" from ProgressivePunch. The district voted for Obama both times he ran-- 59-39% against McCain and 55-44% against Romney. Again, a blue collar district that was all wrong for Hillary. Trump beat her 49.3% to 44.8% and 2015's D+5 PVI is now even. Republicans are usually happy enough with Kind's conservatism to not even run candidates against him. He doesn't have a serious challenger this year. He had no opponent at all in 2016.

"Republicans are mostly on defense in the House of Representatives ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, with Democrats looking to erase the GOP’s 24-seat advantage and take back the majority," wrote Schneirder. "But Republicans are also confident they can pad their margin by picking off some Democrats in heavily white, blue-collar districts next fall, despite the political winds blowing against them elsewhere in the U.S.-- and Democrats are relying on those members to learn the lessons of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to avoid 2018 surprises." The districts the GOP is going after, besides Cartwright's, Bustos' and Kind's, include, NH-01, where Carol Shea-Porter is retiring, NV-03, where right-wing imbecile Jacky Rosen is running for the U.S. Senate, Rick Nolan's district in northern Minnesota and the last remaining Iowa Democratic seat, Dave Loebsack's and the southern Minnesota seat Tim Walz is abandoning to run for governor-- and that's likely the only one they'll win.

There Are Good Democrats And There Are The Other Kind-- Take Nevada For Example

Ruben Kihuen and Dean Heller-- 2018 Senate opponents?

There really was only one feasible way to stop Betsy DeVos from being confirmed-- Nevada. Nevada is a swing state tilting Blue. Obama won it against McCain in 2008 (55-43%) and against Romney in 2012 (52-46%). This past November, Hillary took the state's 6 electoral votes against Triump 537,753 (47.9%) to 511,319 (45.5%). On the same day, Nevada elected Democrat Catherine Cortez Mastro over Republican Joe Heck 520,658 (47.1%) to 494,427 (44.7%) and ended the Republican hold on two of the state's 4 congressional districts by electing progressive Ruben Kihuen and centrist Jacky Rosen in the Las Vegas area. How are they doin'? Take a look at these two charts from ProgressivePunch that examine lifetime crucial vote scores. As you can see, Ruben is tied for #1 (in the entire Congress) with another progressive champion, Pramila Jayapal. Also note though, that Jayapal's district is solidly blue, while Kihuen's is more of a swing district. He beat a Republican incumbent, Cresent Hardy, to win the seat. The second chart shows the records of 4 very mediocre centrist politicians with crap scores tucked neatly between two of the most right-wing Blue Dogs in Congress, Jim Costa (CA) and Collin Peterson (MN).

please click on these two charts to read them

Jacky Rosen is in the middle of that ugliness-- with the kind of voting record that Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy drool over-- Democrats who vote with the GOP more than with their own party on crucial issues. Ruben scores an A; Jacky an F. Why bring this up so soon? Let's go back to that DeVos confirmation vote for a moment. Nevada's Republican senator Dean Heller tries painting himself as some kind of a mainstream conservative, not a radical or extremist like most of his GOP Senate colleagues. But when it came to saving public education-- despite thousands of pleas from Nevadans-- he didn't follow Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski across the aisle; he voted by rote with the GOP to confirm a profoundly unqualified and dangerous nominee. And his seat is up in 2018.

The Democrats don't have a very deep bench in Nevada and there has already been speculation that the party might draft either Ruben or Jacky. "Either?" The stand-out progressive with the best record in the House for resisting Trumpism or the mediocre backbencher who has already voted more with the GOP than with the Democratic Party. There is one sure way the Democrats can guarantee another 6 year term for Dean Heller-- nominee Jacky Ruben as his opponent.

Yesterday evening the Senate voted to confirm the execrable racist, Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General. Again, Dean Heller stuck with his party and voted for the racist to become Attorney General. It didn't take long for Ruben Kihuen let Nevadans know he doesn't agree. "The confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General," he told the Nevada media, " is a troubling development for the progress made by our nation's justice system. His history of racism, opposition to voting rights and immigration reform makes him an unacceptable choice as Attorney General. History will not look kindly on Senate Republicans who continue to rubber stamp Ppresident Trump's controversial and unqualified cabinet nominees, even going so far as to silence Senator Elizabeth Warren's opposition on the Senate floor. They should be ashamed of themselves." And by "they," he no doubt had Dean Heller foremost in mind.

Although Beto O'Rourke, the popular Democratic congressman from El Paso, is likely to take on Ted Cruz, most of the 2018 Senate contests will involve red-state Democrats defending their seats-- unattractive, anti-progressive Democratic incumbents like Joe Manchin (WV), Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Claire McCaskill (MO), Jon Tester (MT)... If Trump turns out to be the disaster he appears to be so far-- and if the Republican Congress continues to enable his crazy agenda-- there are two flippable Republican-held Senate seats up for grabs, Jeff Flake's in Arizona (very tough) and Dean Heller (tough but feasible with a good candidate, i.e.- not Jackie Rosen or some other timid, tepid Republican-lite hack).

As we've been saying, though, the real battle to stop Trump in 2018 is for the House. The Democrats need a net gain of 24 seats to oust Ryan and his horrible chairmen from power. And the Democrats can do it, as we've been explaining.

We've also talked about defending some seats where Democrats were elected where the voters also went for Trump. Several good Democrats are sitting in these Trump districts-- like Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), Matt Cartwright (PA-17), Rick Nolan (MN-08) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02)-- and these seats will need to be vigorously defended from the Trumpists. Most of the Trump districts Dems, though are just worthless Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and don't merit any help at all. Congressional Democrats are better off without garbage incumbents like Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05), Ron Kind (WI-03), Tom O'Halleran (AZ-01), Cheri Bustos (IL-17), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY-18) and... Jacky Rosen (NV-03).

This week the NRCC has released their first list of seats they plan to target in 2018. They have 36 on their list, which is kind of funny (although I have admit that the DCCC's first list was kind of funny too, including absurd "targets" like Martha Roby, French Hill, Richard Hudson and Alex Mooney, whose seat Trump just won 65.8-29.4%). The same way the DCCC is focussing on Republican-held seats that Hillary won, the NRCC is focussing on Democratic-held seats that Trump won, the ones we refer to as Trump district Dems. "That segment of the list," wrote Alex Isenstadt, "is heavy on blue-collar districts in the Midwest, which Republicans believe will be especially fertile political territory in the Trump era. It includes two Democrats who were not heavily targeted by the GOP in 2016: Reps. Dave Loebsack, a veteran incumbent from southeastern Iowa, and Ron Kind, who is from west central Wisconsin and ran unopposed in 2016 while Trump carried his seat by more than 4 percentage points." These are the 36 seats the NRCC is targeting:

• AZ-1- Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog)
• AZ-09- Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog)
• CA-07- Ami Bera (New Dem)- safe
• CA-24- Salud Carbajal (New Dem)- safe
• CA-36- Raul Ruiz- safe
• CA-52- Scott Peters (New Dem)- safe
• CO-07- Ed Perlmutter (New Dem)- safe
• CT-02- Joe Courtney (New Dem)- safe
• CT-05- Elizabeth Esty (New Dem)- safe
• FL-07- Stephanie Murphie (Blue Dog)- safe
• FL-13- Charlie Crist- safe
• IA-02- Dave Loebsack- safe
• IL-17- Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog)- safe
• MA-09- Bill Keating- safe
• MD-06- John Delaney (New Dem)- safe
• MI-05- Dan Kildee- safe
• MI-09- Sander Levin- safe
• MN-01- Tim Walz
• MN-07- Collin Peterson (Blue Dog)
• MN-08- Rick Nolan
• NH-01- Carol Shea-Porter
• NH-02- Ann Kuster (New Dem)- safe
• NJ-05- Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog)
• NM-01- open
• NM-03- Ben Ray Lujan- safe
• NV-03- Jacky Rosen
• NV-04- Ruben Kihuen- safe
• NY-03- Tom Suozzi- safe
• NY-18- Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem)- safe
• OH-13- Tim Ryan- safe
• OR-04- Pete DeFazio- safe
• OR-o5- Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog)- safe
• PA-17- Matt Cartwright- safe
• WA-06- Derek Kilmer (New Dem)- safe
• WA-10- Denny Heck (New Dem)- safe
• WI-03- Ron Kind (New Dem)- safe

Trump District Dems

Carol Shea-Porter and friend

Yesterday we looked at opportunities Democrats have in congressional districts where Hillary did better than Democrats normally do. But not every district is about opportunities. Some are about defense. There were a dozen districts that Democrats now hold where Trump beat Hillary. Most of them-- 75%-- are held by worthless Blue Dogs and New Dems (the Republican wing of the Democratic Party) who tend vote with the GOP on most key roll calls and even more so in committee. Democrats would be better off without them since the only function they serve is giving Ryan and McCarthy the opportunity to call their toxic, destructive agenda "bipartisan."

Importantly, though, there are 4 genuine and worthy Democrats whose districts went for Trump and who have to worry about what could happen to them in 2018, these 4:

• NH-01- Carol Shea-Porter was elected by around 5,000 votes (44.2% to 42.9%) against a very well-funded incumbent, while Trump beat Hillary in her district, 48.2% to 46.6%. Carol Shea Porter and her GOP opponent, Frank Guinta, each spent around $1.5 million but while the NRCC spent $1,294,212 helping Guinta, the DCCC spent nothing at all on Shea-Porter. Blue America spent $12,500 helping Shea-Porter and Carol is someone deserving of grassroots help.
• PA-17- Matt Cartwright was reelected with a more than 20,000 vote margin (53.8% to 46.2%) against an under-funded, little-known Republican, while Trump over-performed Romney (43.3%), beating Clinton 53.4% to 43.3%. Cartwright spent $859,029 on the race and his GOP opponent only managed to raise $30,578.
• MN-08- Rick Nolan was reelected after one of the toughest election battles in the country. Nolan spent $2,874,695 and his wealthy opponent, Stewart Mills, spent $3,577,291, while Democrats spent over $7.4 million assisting Nolan and the Republican spent $6.2 million helping Mills. Nolan won a very close victory, 179,106 (50.3%) to 177,095 (49.7%), while Trump won massively-- 54.2% to 38.6%, a big turn-around from Obama's 2012 victory in the district when he beat Romney 51.7% to 46.2%.
• IA-02- Dave Loebsack was reelected by about 25,000 votes (53.7% to 46.3% against Chris Peters. Loebsack raised $1,608,466 and Peters raised $216,593. Neither the DCCC nor the NRCC was involved in the race. Trump did much better than Romney had. Obama won the district, 55.8% to 42.7%, but in November Trump won it 49.1% to Hillary's 45.0%.

And these are the districts with Democrats who think they key to winning is to pretend to be a Republican and vote for the Trump-Ryan agenda. If you clicked on the thermometer above, you probably noticed none of their names are on the fundraising list-- nor are the names of the red state Senate Democrats who have been voting the Trump line, like McCaskill, Heitkamp, Manchin and Donnelly. Instead you found Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, each of whom knows the way to win is by bolstering the legitimate aspirations of working families in their states, states that voted Trump in November.

• AZ-01- Tom O'Halleran is an "ex"-Republican, now a Blue Dog. He probably won the open R+4 red seat because the Republicans ran a gay sheriff with a very shady background, Paul Babeu, and the party didn't give him any support. O'Halleran took 117,048 votes (50.8%) to Babeu's 100,236 votes (43.5%). O'Halleran spent $1,579,377 and Babeu spent almost as much, $1,272,374. But where the DCCC spent $2.6 for O'Halleran, the NRCC wasn't interested and spent just $96,000 on Babeu's behalf. In 2018, they'll probably have a candidate more to their liking and will spend plenty to defeat O'Halleran. And why not? Trump won the district, 47.7% to 46.6%. Romney, who won the district in 2012, and Obama both did better than Trump and Hillary.

• IL-17- Cheri Bustos is a Rahm Emanuel protégée and a reactionary Blue Dog. The GOP didn't bother to oppose her in November. She raised $3,504,463, while the poor schnook of a Republican who ran, Patrick Harlan, didn't even raise the $5,000 that would have triggered an FEC report. The NRCC didn't help at all. Obama had won this gerrymandered district-- gerrymandered by Democrats to help Bustos-- 57.6% to 40.6%. But Trump took the district against Clinton-- 47.4% to 46.7%. It's likely that the NRCC will look more closely at IL-17 in 2018. It would be helpful for the Democratic brand to be rid of Bustos who is on the DCCC recruiting committee and keeps blackballing progressives and wasting Democratic efforts on Blue Dog garbage like herself.

• MN-01- Tim Walz was barely reelected, 169,076 (50.4%) to 166,527 (49.6%), spending $1,585,118 to Republican Jim Hagedorn's $356,277, with no spending by outside groups at all. Obama had won the district, narrowly, in 2012-- 49.6% to 48.2%. Hillary didn't. She lost badly, 53.3% to 38.4%. Walz is an NRA hack with a pretty bad voting record, not on a level of horribleness like Bustos, but not good enough to contribute to his campaign either.

• MN-07- Collin Peterson didn't have a credible opponent this last cycle. Peterson raised $1,201,913 to Dave Hughes' $19,511 and won 173,571 (52.5%) to 156,950 (47.5%). The district is lost to Democrats. Romney won 53.9-44.1%. Trump did way better, beating Hillary 61.8% to 31.0%. Peterson deserves to be defeated. His record is a nightmare and on core issues he votes far more frequently with the Republicans than with the Democrats.

• NJ-05- Josh Gottheimer is the worst of the Democratic freshmen, a completely worthless Wall Street whore who couldn't wait to join the Blue Dogs and New Dems. He's already got a worse lifetime ProgressivePunch crucial vote score than several Republicans. Gottheimer managed to beat detested Republican incumbent Scott Garrett, a bizarre extremist who the GOP was glad say good-bye to. Gottheimer spent $4,703,377 and Garrett spent $4,303,125 but where the difference really came into play was when the DCCC and Pelosi's PAC spent $3.7 million on behalf of Gottheimer while the NRCC and Ryan's PAC spent... ZERO on Garrett. Trump beat Clinton in the district 48.8% to 47.7%. So far, it doesn't look like Gottheimer deserves a second term. He does deserve a primary though.

• NV-03- Jacky Rosen is a pretty worthless waste of a seat. She's already amassed a revolting, cowardly voting record that indicates she's someone who will likely not have a long or distinguished congressional career. She managed to win an open seat in southern Clark County against a much-disliked Republican politician and insider, Danny Tarkanian. She beat him by around 4,000 votes, 47.2% to 46.0%, while Trump won the district 47.5% to 46.5%. Here's another one who's earning a primary challenge.

• NY-18- Sean Patrick Maloney is New York's worst congressional Democrat, a corporate New Dem who does his slimy call time from a hedge fund office. Obama won his upstate district 51.4- 47.1% in 2012 but in November, Trump edged out Hillary 49.0 to 47.1%. Maloney beat Republican Phil Oliva by almost 30,000 votes, 55.2-44.8%, after outraisng him $3,568,008 to $224,658. There was no party money spent on the race on either side. Maloney generally has one of the half dozen worst voting records of any Democrat; he deserves a primary.

• WI-03- Ron Kind was the head of the New Dems until this year when Jim Himes took over. He's an affable enough guy but he votes with the GOP against the working families of western Wisconsin. They deserve better. The Republicans figure they're not going to find anyone more supportive of their agenda than Kind so they didn't bother to even find an opponent for him. He raised $2,105,216 from his sleazy campaign contributors, most of which he's stockpiling for 2018. Obama beat Romney in the district, 54.8 to 43.8% but voters felt Trump was more appealing than Clinton and gave him a 49.3% to 44.8% win.

Let me go back to Ron Brownstein's Atlantic piece on the new contours of the partisan divide. He started off writing about dedicated progressive Matt Cartwright and pointed out that the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature drew Matt a safe blue district in order to get rid of Democrats in the surrounding districts to elect extra Republicans to Congress. "Obama easily carried the district twice," he wrote, "winning about 56 percent of the vote each time. But last November, Cartwright’s district lurched sharply toward Donald Trump, who beat Hillary Clinton there by about 10 percentage points. The shift in Cartwright’s district from Mitt Romney’s deficit against Obama to Trump’s advantage over Clinton was larger than the change in all but one other seat in the entire country. Cartwright still won comfortably against a lightly funded opponent, but his vote dipped from 57 percent in 2014 to slightly below 54 percent. Now, Republicans are eyeing Cartwright as a potential target in the 2018 midterm election more seriously than ever before."

Bracing for potentially tougher challenges in 2018 and beyond, many of the House Democrats in Trump districts are adopting a common playbook. The two pillars are emphasizing constituent services and focusing as much as possible on bread-and-butter economic issues. “The main point is that the economy outweighs everything else, so these registered Democrats came out and voted for Donald Trump because they’re hurting,” Cartwright said in a recent interview. “Here’s the lesson I take from that: These are my people. They’re hurting. Forget about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. My people are hurting. That means I have to redouble my efforts to take care of them. To make sure we do everything we can think of to promote manufacturing jobs in this area, to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare, and to stimulate the economy so that it works for people around here.”

Likewise, Loebsack, the Iowa Democrat, said in an interview that he considers his accessibility a key to his survival. “For me it’s always been engaging people where they live, work, and play,” he said. “I get around to my counties, every one of my counties, on a very regular basis.”

The other key, Loebsack said, was to stay focused on core economic issues, including local concerns like rural access to broadband or protecting the renewable fuel standard that promotes biofuels. “When people want to talk to me about LGBT issues I talk about them, and I’m for equality,” he said. “When they want to talk about voting rights, I’m for that. But at the same time I think we need to have first and foremost the focus on the economy and jobs.”

...Tom Davis... is dubious Republicans will ultimately benefit from this rolling class realignment: “It didn’t surprise me that Trump saw this [resorting] and put an exclamation point on it,” Davis said, “but it’s still a loser for Republicans long-term.” ... What’s clear is that, in the near term, congressional Republicans are more bound than many might prefer to Trump’s path. If Trump’s popularity sinks by 2018, he would endanger House Republicans in all kinds of districts. But if Trump maintains a base of support similar to his profile today, he could solidify or even extend the commanding Republican advantage in predominantly blue-collar seats. If that happens, the Democrats’ hopes of regaining a House majority anytime soon will depend on them convincing ordinarily Republican-leaning white-collar suburbanites to express their continuing unease about Trump—by electing more Democratic representatives to resist him.

Thursday, Mike DeBonis, writing for the Washington Post, reported that the DCCC is already hiring organizers to work in traditionally Republican districts where Hillary excelled. They are seeking to "harness the wave of grass-roots protests that have greeted President Trump in his first weeks in office to reclaim the House majority in next year’s midterm elections." They targeted 20 districts so far. Being the DCCC-- one of the least competent organization on the planet-- it's unlikely to help much. In fact, the clueless Luján bragged that the new field operatives will be hired in most cases from within the targeted districts and who have previously worked on House campaigns there. That means they already have losing pounded into their consciousnesses and probably don't know how to do anything but lose. Having worked for the DCCC should disqualify people, not recommend them. This is frightening:

“We were able to quickly reach out to people we have trained as organizers, that have already been on campaigns, that know the communities and leaders, that know many of these districts,” he said. “We’re bringing them right back into the fold.”

A person familiar with the committee’s plans said the operatives will develop relationships and coordinate with local grass-roots leaders who are already taking part in protests and work with them to build capacity-- teaching them, for instance, how to set up phone banks, write letters to newspapers, organize rallies and meetups, and use social media to promote events and share photos and video.

The DCCC has a history of hiring the worst of the worst. Districts included in this program include the suburban belt Philly districts that the DCCC has proven year after year after year to be 100% incompetent to work in, as well as suburban districts in California, Minnesota and Colorado that they keep losing by doing the same stupid things over and over. New districts include Culberson's in Houston, Roskam's in Chicagoland, Royce's in Orange County and Sessions' in the Dallas suburbs, all obvious districts where Clinton won but where the DCCC has never fought.

Looking toward 2018, Democrats are hoping to avoid the dip in voter engagement they saw in the past two midterms under President Barack Obama, through which Republicans were able to build their strongest House majority since 1930. Major elements of the traditional Democratic coalition-- younger, poorer and minority voters-- simply did not turn out as strongly as they did in presidential election years.

Luján acknowledged that will have to change if Democrats can expect to retake the majority in two years: “A big part of this initiative is to help educate voters and create more awareness of the importance of midterm elections, and to stay just as active in a midterm election as you would in a presidential election.”

Luján should tackle the enthusiasm problem by recruiting candidates Democratic voters can actually be enthusiastic about,not the garbage Blue Dogs and New Dems Cheri Bustos keeps bringing to the table. If Luján keeps running crap candidates in the Rahm Emanuel-Steve Israel mold, the DCCC will just keep losing into eternity... unless Trump starts a nuclear war or sparks a Depression.