Reactionary Blue Dogs And Wall Street-Owned Corporate Dems Want You To Know They're Not Socialists

Blue Dog Max Rose and progressive Democrat Ilhan Omar

It should be no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention that the Republicans are going to run against Democrats next year by asserting they're all "socialists" who want to turn the U.S. into Venezuela. I asked Alan Grayson about the problem that Democratic candidates will be facing as they endeavor to combat these pernicious tactics. He told me he sees it as "part of a conscious propaganda strategy in demonizing Democrats, formerly known as McCarthyism. One side of the coin is decrying real news as 'fake news,' and the other side of the coin is slinging fake metaphors as real metaphors. Republican shills have weaponized analogies, trying to play upon a cognitive bias called 'illusory correlation.' Similes aren’t always similar. Not everything is like everything else. Likes can be deceiving."

The other, day Dave Weigel's Washington Post column mentioned that conservative Democrats want their constituents to know that they're not socialists. Blue Dog Max Rose has accrued a ProgressivePunch "F" since coming to Congress. Only 12 freshman Dems have worse voting records so far. And none of them want anyone to think they're socialists. No one will. These are all corporate Dems with natural affinities to Wall Street, not to working families.

At Rose's first town hall a Republican lawyer accused the Democratic Party of becoming "a forum for anti-Semitism" and left-wing extremism, causing Rose to pivot into throwing Ilhan Omar under the bus: "I have to make a confession: I’m not a socialist. I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m the person who you all elected, and there are members of the Democratic Party who have said things I vehemently oppose. I was the first member of the Democratic Party to come out and criticize someone who, I believed, had made an anti-Semitic comment."

There was a brief and loud round of applause; Rose did not need to mention that he was talking about Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). The congressman, who ran nine points ahead of Hillary Clinton to win the swingy 11th Congressional District, did so as a moderate [the Post and its writes purposefully term even the most conservative, right-wing Democrats "moderates'] with a military record who would not take orders from his party. Rose, who is Jewish, told the audience that he had joined Democrats in condemning "acts of hate, acts of divisiveness, no matter where they came from" but that he would criticize his peers when they deserved it.

“The Democratic Party is a big tent, isn’t it?” he asked, rhetorically. “They’ve kept it interesting for me.”

It was a nice way to describe a problem that dozens of House Democrats are confronting every time they head home. Rose, one of the 41 Democrats who flipped Republican-held seats last year, is near the top of the GOP’s list of 2020 targets. The president’s party has signaled that it will run against the Democrats’ left, represented less by its White House hopefuls than by stars like Omar and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). This week, the first real congressional recess of the year, is seeing the first test of that strategy, as new Democrats with strong local images get asked about those other Democrats-- the ones constantly on their TV screens.

At this stage in any congressional cycle, the party committees like to dream big. The Republicans’ target list includes not just the 31 Democrats whose districts backed the president in 2016, but also Democrats whose districts voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. After watching dozens of competent Republicans fail to separate themselves from Trump, they are betting that vulnerable Democrats will not be able to distance themselves from the party’s energized left.

The essential epithet, borrowed from the president, is “socialist”-- a press memo from the National Republican Congressional Committee last week used the phrase “socialist Democrats” no less than 21 times. And Republicans have gotten unexpected air cover from former Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz, who has roamed the country threatening to run a centrist campaign for president because of the "mainstreaming of socialism" inside the Democratic Party.

The evidence from some of the new Democrats’ town hall meetings is that the message has broken through, with a caveat-- new members from swing districts are happy to separate themselves from the party’s left. At a Sunday town hall meeting in Virginia’s 10th District, Rep. Jennifer Wexton, one of the Democrats who flipped a seat in 2018, got questions on “anti-Semitism,” why more Democrats did not applaud the president during his State of the Union address, why Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) had not resigned over revelations that he wore blackface and had a picture of a Klansman outfit in his medical school yearbook, and even why she hung a transgender flag outside of her office instead of a flag raising awareness of American prisoners of war.

“I chose to hang the transgender flag because that’s a community that’s been under attack,” Wexton said. The man who asked the question and had been recording her answer, packed up and left in a huff.

The hot-button questions did not dominate Wexton’s town hall; the only obviously organized groups that attended represented the health-care and disability rights group Little Lobbyists and the gun-safety group Moms Demand Action, both of which she had supported in the past. The diverse and highly educated 10th District has trended strongly Democratic since it was drawn, and Wexton is not seen as one of the most vulnerable new Democrats.

Even so, the Republican plan of attack against Wexton has been to blur any differences between her and the high-profile left-wing members who dominated the last month of news about the House. An NRCC digital ad running in the district asks if Wexton would impeach the president-- not because he is popular in Northern Virginia, but because Republicans see a chance to define the low-key congresswoman before she can define herself.

“I represent the interests of my constituents,” Wexton said after the town hall. “I know that we hear a lot in the press about certain other people in our class, but each of us has our own agenda and our own constituents that we’re out here representing.”

Rose, whose constituents have voted Republican in recent elections, is in a trickier spot. He was one of the first new Democrats to draw a credible Republican opponent-- Nicole Malliotakis, a member of the state assembly who lopsidedly lost a 2017 run for New York  mayor but carried Staten Island.

In an interview, Malliotakis repeatedly called Rose a “Park Slope liberal” who had won only because a nasty 2018 primary weakened the Republican incumbent. (Rose was raised in that part of Brooklyn, but when his 2018 opponent brought it up, the Democrat said he would have moved to Staten Island sooner, had he not been serving in Afghanistan.) Sure, he criticized Omar, said Malliotakis-- but he voted with her more often than not, and he didn’t call for her to be bounced from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

“I’m running against Max and the entire crop of new progressives who have come into the Congress who are trying to move the country toward socialism,” she said. “I thought it was great when he denounced Ilhan Omar, but I was disappointed later that day when he called her a friend with whom he shares values. I think the people of this district deserve to know what values he's referring to.”

Over 90 minutes in a Staten Island church, Rose didn’t distance himself from the Democratic Party. He excoriated the president for leaving the Paris climate accords; he pledged to protect the Affordable Care Act; he stood his ground against a constituent angry that he had opposed a Republican amendment to the Democrats’ omnibus voting rights bill, which would have prevented undocumented immigrants from voting in any election, federal or local. (They already are banned.)

“A lot of people are afraid to actually vote to drain the swamp, so they decided to play games,” Rose said.

But Rose also jumped at the chance to distance himself from the party’s far left. He defended his vote for a different Republican amendment, to the Democrats’ popular background checks bill, which required gun sellers to notify ICE, the immigraiton enforcement agency, if undocumented immigrants tried to make a purchase, by saying that "if someone is buying a weapon who shouldn’t be, authorities should be notified." That did not change his opposition to some of ICE's tactics, he said.

And Rose-- like Wexton-- was dismissive toward the Green New Deal, a climate-change measure proposed by Ocasio-Cortez. Wexton called it an “aspirational” document that didn’t have enough details for her; Rose, just miles from Ocasio-Cortez’s district, said that he wanted to “transition responsibly to a carbon-free economy" and that the major left-wing project of 2019 did not work for him.

“The Green New Deal in so many ways takes a socialist economic agenda, and puts it under the veil of environmentalism,” he said. “That’s not who I am. That’s never who I was. That’s why I’m not a signatory to the Green New Deal-- but, give me a plan to tackle climate change, and I’ll be the first one to sign on.”

I hope Rose understands that it doesn't matter to the Republicans if he supports the ultra-popular Green New Deal or not; they'll blanket the airwaves implying he's a socialist-- and worse-- anyway. No mention in his town hall about the accomplishments of the last president the GOP continuously attacked as a socialist: FDR.

Weigel wrote that "To get to Congress, Rose had dispatched a number of more left-wing challengers" but didn't bother mentioning that the DCCC and Democratic establishment backed Rose and did everything they could to bury the other candidates.

Mike Siegel is a candidate running in a red Texas district, TX-10, that Obama lost both times and where Trump beat Hillary by about 9 points. Last year only 4 points separated Mike and the entrenched GOP incumbent, Michael McCaul. Rose may be afraid of his R+3 district but Siegel is in love with his R+9 district and feel confident he can flip it in 2020 with a strong populist message tailored very much for Texas voters. And he has no fear of the GOP's strategy of calling every Democrat-- the conservatives and the progressives-- "socialists."

At a campaign event with Ted Lieu last night, Mike told the crowd that "according to the GOP, Social Security is a 'socialist' program. Medicare and Medicaid, too. Basically, any program that cares for the poor, for the elderly, for those needing a little extra help to have a fair shot at success. When Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple, and gave alms to the poor and sick, I guess that was 'socialist' too. But it's not 'socialist' when megacorporations, whether Big Tech or Big Oil, get hundreds of millions in subsidies from the American taxpayers. The good thing about this Republican fear-mongering is that at a certain point voters tune it out, and it loses its effect. My plan is to run on a strong progressive platform that serves the needs of the people of the Texas 10th Congressional District. The Republicans refused Medicaid expansion in Texas, and as a result we have rural hospitals closing and sky-high maternal mortality rates. The alternative I support is a commitment to universal healthcare, in the form of Medicare For All. The Republican budget would cut just about every essential social program to pay for tax cuts for the rich. We will campaign on a program of caring for people, not corporations."

Anyone who would like to help Mike bring this message to central Texas, please consider contributing by clicking on the Turning Texas Blue thermometer on the right.

Trump Is Proving To Be Absolutely Toxic For Republicans In Swing Districts Currently Held By Republicans

More Democrats need to run on this and NOT on Pelosi's insane idea of restoring PAY-GO

Two very different polls with interesting information came out this morning, one from Quinnipiac and one from Monmouth. Both carry very bad news for the GOP. I bet you haven't seen this before: American voters believe 55% to 28% that the allegations "anonymous" made-- and that were made by anonymous senior White House staffers in Fear that Trump's top aides work behind his back "to keep him from making what the aides believe are bad decisions"-- are true. Even 27% of Republicans believe it! Normal Americans seem much more certain than Republicans are. Among Democrats, 82% believe the assertions and among Independent voters 52% believe (and 33% don't believe). Asked if Trump is honest or not, 32% of Americans say he is and 60% understand that he's a congenital liar, incapable of opening his filthy mouth without lying. Among Republicans, only 17% understand he's a liar, but 92% of Democrats and 63% of Independents do. Nor is dishonesty the only trait polled that contributes to Trump's overall 38/54% approval/disapproval rating.

• Good leadership skills- No- 57%
• Cares about average Americans- No- 55%
• Level-headed- No- 65%
• Strong- Yes- 57%
• Intelligent- Yes- 51%
• Shares your values- No- 60%
• Mentally stable- Yes- 48% (42% say he's out of his mind)

The all-important fit to serve as president question- 41% say he is and 55% understand he isn't. By a 90-7% margin Republicans think he is fit to serve. 96% of Democrats say he isn't. Among independent votes, 42% say he's fit to serve and 53% say he isn't. That's a pretty bad hand Republicans are going into the midterms with. And that's what the Monmouth Poll dealt with-- but in just 8 key Republican-held battleground districts polled between June and August.

Unfortunately, Monmouth doesn't seem to be releasing the specific information by congressional district. I called them and tried, unsuccessfully, to get it out of them. These are the districts they polled: CA-48 (Rohrabacher), PA-01 (Brian Fitzpatrick), PA-17 (Keith Rothfus), NJ-03 (Tom MacArthur), NJ-11 (Rodney Frelinghuysen), OH-12 (Troy Balderson), VA-10 (Barbara Comstock), WV-03 (Evan Jenkins). Let me give you the information they reported (the average more or less of the 8 districts combined) and then I'll get into what I could find by scrounging around their site about the individual districts.

Among likely voters in the 8 districts, Democrats lead 47-43%. The two italicized incumbents are not running for reelection. The pollster reminds us that in all 8 districts Republican candidates won-- routinely-- by double digit margins in recent cycles. Findings:

• Where voters live has an impact on the margin of support. GOP House candidates are underperforming in Republican precincts relative to the Democrats’ performance in their base precincts. The Republican lead is between 4 and 13 percentage points in precincts that Romney/Trump carried, with the range depending on the size of the GOP presidential ticket’s margin. The Democratic lead is much stronger at 15 to 28 points in districts carried by Obama/Clinton.  In competitive districts – those where the average margin was less than 5 points for either party’s presidential ticket-- Democratic House candidates have a slim lead of 4 points. Also, the Democratic House candidate does better overall in precincts where Trump did worse than Romney even after controlling for the precinct’s partisan lean.
• Race, education and gender define key voting groups. Republicans’ core voting bloc is comprised of white men without a college degree, while Democrats can count on strong support from white female college graduates as a well as women of color regardless of educational attainment. White women without a degree and white male college graduates are more competitive groups, as are, to a lesser degree, men of color. White men without a degree who are registered Democrats and women of color who are registered Republicans are the most likely to cross party lines in their 2018 House vote.
• Partisan differences in election interest. High interest is more prevalent among voters supporting the Democratic candidates (62%) than it is among those supporting the Republicans (54%) in these eight races. The highest levels of interest come from college educated white men (75%) and women (72%) who are supporting a Democratic House candidate.
• Strongly held opinions of Trump lean negative. While voter opinion of Trump is evenly divided at 49% approve and 48% disapprove, there is a negative gap when looking only at strongly held opinions-- 33% strongly approve and 40% strongly disapprove in these eight districts.

Nw let's look at the district by district information I was able to cobble together within a reasonable time-frame relative to the above information.

• NJ-03- Trump's approval is 46% (33% strongly) and his disapproval is 49% (41% strongly). 48% of NJ-03 voters say they oppose Trump on "most issues" and 43% say they support him.

• PA-17- Trump's approval is 44% (28% strongly) and his disapproval is 51% (43% strongly). 49% of PA-17 voters say they oppose Trump on "most issues" and 46% say they support him.

• CA-48- Trump's approval is 46% (32% strongly) and his disapproval is 49% (39% strongly). 48% of CA-48 voters say they oppose Trump on "most issues" and 45% say they support him.

• NJ-11- Trump's approval is 47% (31% strongly) and his disapproval is 49% (43% strongly). 43% of NJ-11 voters say they oppose Trump on "most issues" and 49% say they support him.

• VA-10- Trump's approval is 42% (24% strongly) and his disapproval is 53% (47% strongly). 39% of VA-10 voters say they oppose Trump on "most issues" and 45% say they support him.

• PA-01- Trump's approval is 47% (31% strongly) and his disapproval is 49% (43% strongly). 49% of PA-01 voters say they oppose Trump on "most issues" and 44% say they support him.

• WV-03- Trump's approval is 66% (49% strongly) and his disapproval is 30% (23% strongly). 29% of WV-03 voters say they oppose Trump on "most issues" and 65% say they support him.

Wondering what this translates to nationally? It's impossible to be precise but it's a lot more than the 23 seats the Democrats need for a House Majority. In fact, it's more like something between two or three times more. There are always special circumstances in every race. In WV-03, as you can see, Trump has very high approvals. The PVI there is red, red, red-- R+23-- and Trump slaughtered Hillary, 72.5% to 22.5%. But you know who else slaughtered Hillary there? Bernie. And the colorful Democratic candidate in the district, state Senator Richard Ojeda, supported Bernie in the primary and Trump in the general-- just like so many WV-03 voters did. He's also created a unique brand for himself. That's likely to be the reddest district in the country won by a Democrat, but it's proof that if the DCCC keeps out of primaries, anything can happen.

And today's last poll-- this one from CNN-- was more bad news for Trumpanzee and his GOPzee. Over the last month, Señor T’s approval rating has dropped six points 36% from 42%. His disapproval is now 58%. And for Republicans running in the midterms, the worst part of this is that Trump's troubles are coming from... independent voters. "Among independents, the drop has been sharper, from 47% approval last month to 31% now. That's 4 points below his previous 2018 low of 35% approval among political independents in CNN polling, and 1 point below his previous all-time low among independents in CNN polling, reached in November 2017."sn't around messing up races and thwarting the wave, virtually anything can happen.

A Virtuous Cycle: Trump Toxicity And Anti-Trump Turnout

Digby's tweet was so strong and to the point yesterday; every word completely precise-- like a Joni Mitchell song. "God he's dumb. Malevolent too. And psychologically unfit. But really, really dumb. I can't think of anyone in history with this particular combination. We just don't have a roadmap to deal with a very stupid, dishonest, narcissistic demagogue. It's a lethal combination."

Lethal-- and for Republican candidates TOXIC. Let's look at a couple of polls that were released today in Virginia. First, the new Monmouth poll in VA10. Mediocre establishment Democrat Jennifer Wexton is already killing GOP incumbent Barbara Comstock, 49% to 39%, among likely voters voters. At the same time Quinnipiac released a poll showing incumbent Tim Kaine (D) eviscerating Trump's neo-Nazi Republican Corey Stewart 54% to 36%. Furthermore, with Trump as the titular head of the GOP, just 32% of Virginia voters have a favorable opinion of the party, while 59% have an unfavorable opinion. Pollster Peter Brown: "Virginia, which was once a solidly red state, has made the full transition to a blue bastion. Voters in the Old Dominion are happy with the way things are going in their state and they give their statewide Democratic office-holders good approval ratings."

The more desperate Trump gets-- he hates being labeled "a loser"-- the more he alienates independent voters and discourages mainstream Republicans. He was quick to endorse the neo-Nazi Virginia Senate candidate, even as McConnell's NRSC said that Stewart is on his own and not going to get any help from the party establishment.

And, as Alex Burns reported in the New York Times yesterday Democratic turn out is through the roof, especially in the most competitive primary races. "In more than 20 of the most competitive House races of 2018," he wrote, "the share of Democrats voting in primaries notably increased, compared with 2014, the last midterm election cycle. Democrats have appeared to be more enthusiastic than Republicans about the 2018 elections, showing up in huge numbers to protest" ugly neo-fascist Señor Trump.

Democratic turnout has risen more sharply than Republican turnout has in at least 123 congressional districts, including districts in states like California and New Jersey, where Republican incumbents are most vulnerable.

That turnout pattern is highly encouraging to Democrats who hope to flood the polls in November and unseat Republicans, even in districts that typically lean to the right. Midterm campaigns often hinge on voter enthusiasm: Without a presidential race to draw casual voters to the polls, the party out of power tends to benefit from disproportionate turnout among Americans who feel angry or aggrieved about politics in Washington.

That’s exactly what happened in the first midterm election of Barack Obama’s presidency, when Republicans and disaffected independent voters showed up in powerful numbers and pro-Obama voters did not. Democrats lost 63 House seats as a result, handing Republicans control of the House.

The turnout pattern in the primary season that year looks a lot like 2018 so far, except with Republicans displaying far greater enthusiasm then. In 186 congressional primaries in 2010, the share of Republicans voting was higher than in the prior midterm election. Democrats improved upon their 2006 numbers in just 35 primaries in 2010-- a convincing indication, months before the general election, that the president’s party was in a slump.

There have been important exceptions to the trend of powerful Democratic enthusiasm this year, and Republicans have been encouraged by robust turnout among Republican voters in a number of statewide primaries, in places like Ohio and Texas.

And there are exceptions to the exception. Burns explained that Democratic voting surged in some parts of Texas, like in the massive south Texas district, swingy TX-23, where Republican Will Hurd is largely seen as a dead man walking. In far redder districts like TX-36 and TX-10, both entirely  ignored by the DCCC, Dayna Steele and Mike Siegel did very well on primary day, both winning unexpectedly big victories. "We are," Dayna told me today, "in the fight of our lives here in southeast Texas. However, far from being discouraged, we are highly encouraged by the thousands of good people who are stepping up to say, 'Enough!' and joining our fight. I've said it all along and I will say it again-- this is not a Democratic or Republican thing, this is an American thing, and we are all going to have to fight, speak up, and donate together to win back our beloved country."

Siegel is running in TX-10, which includes a substantial portion of Austin as well as well as improving Democratic terrain in western Harris County. "This district was drawn to strongly favor a Republican," Siegel says, "but as Austin and Houston expand outwards, it has become much more diverse. And as McCaul attacks our healthcare, separates immigrant children from their parents, and cuts government programs to pay for his tax cuts, he becomes increasingly vulnerable to replacement."

Siegel’s campaign and others will benefit from strong statewide candidates, including Lieutenant Governor candidate Mike Collier, Attorney General candidate Justin Nelson, and Beto O'Rourke for Senate. The latest Texas Tribune poll suggests that Nelson is within the margin of error, running against an indicted incumbent, and that Collier and O'Rourke are within striking distance. Strong statewide candidates are key in Texas, because voters can choose to vote "straight ticket" and thus avoid making race-by-race decisions. If enough Republicans avoid that button because they like Beto or Collier, then Siegel and Steele and other down-ticket candidates will have a stronger chance at pulling an upset.

November: Democrats Are Counting On A Wave, While Republicans Count On Gerrymandered Districts

Monday morning, the right-wing Washington Examiner tried painting a picture that the Blue Wave is no sure thing. I guess they hoped no one would dig down into their article-- which pretty much shows-- as far as anything 4 months away can do-- that it really is. They cite polling numbers that go up and down but end by admitting the Democrats are ahead in generic polling now by between 7.3 and 7.7%. And they don't talk much about independent votes who have turned against the GOP and who aren't affected by a gerrymandered map.

They then quote a former conservative Democratic hack who spends his time on Fox News, Pat Caddell, as though he were an actual Democrat. Caddell, a blowhard is always available to be the "Democrat" who proves whatever the GOP wants him to prove but even he couldn't say there was no wave coming. "I think the blue wave has receded somewhat," said Pat Caddell, a longtime Democratic pollster and consultant who is now a Fox News contributor. "I still think that as long as this election remains unclear about how it’s focused, there is an instinct in off years for anybody who disapproves of anything about the incumbent to vote no" on the presidential party.

Karl Rove dismisses the idea of a blue wave even in the House. “Instead, 2018 will be a brutal district-by-district battle,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “Each outcome will be determined as much by the quality of candidates and their campaigns as by the national climate.”

That doesn’t mean all is well for the GOP, however. Republican strategists conceded to the Washington Examiner that there is still an “intensity gap” that favors the Democrats. “Voters are motivated by three things: greed, anger and fear,” said Brian O. Walsh, president of the pro-Trump outside group America First Action and a former NRCC political director.

Republicans aren’t greedy because they have just gotten a tax cut, they aren’t angry because they are in power in Washington and they aren’t afraid because they are not yet convinced those majorities are in jeopardy.

Republicans have underperformed in special elections dating to last year, even when they have won. And they have lost their share: a Senate seat in Alabama, where Trump won by 27.8 points; a Wisconsin state senate seat where Trump won by 17; a Pennsylvania congressional seat in a district Trump won by 20.

Pennsylvania is a problem because of court-imposed redistricting Democrats say reverses Republican gerrymandering and Republicans contend merely re-gerrymanders the state for the Democrats’ benefit. Either way, it is likely to lead to a net loss in Republican seats in a year where the party doesn’t have many to spare.

“With the majority of primary elections behind us, it’s clear that Democrats have nominated incredibly strong candidates who uniquely fit their districts and have built top-tier campaigns,” said Tyler Law, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “With a huge pickup in Pennsylvania, highly effective maneuvering of the California top-two system, and a historically unpopular House Republican agenda on healthcare and taxes, Democrats have all the momentum heading into the midterms. That said, we take nothing for granted given that Republicans will have a massive resource advantage with all of their dark money outside groups.”

California is a good example of the mixed signals this election cycle has sent. Democrats feared their overcrowded primary fields, riven by ideological divisions between factions loyal to 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton and her progressive challenger Bernie Sanders, would deprive them the opportunity to contest some Clinton-won districts in the state currently represented by GOP congressmen. Because California had adopted a top-two “jungle primary” system regardless of party affiliation, the concern was that Democratic votes would be so split in some of these districts that none of their candidates would make it to the general election ballot.

Instead Democrats advanced in all these districts. “First, we didn’t get locked out of anything,” said Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist. “This gives Democrats an opportunity to play to November… Second, if you look at some the Republican incumbents, yeah they finished way ahead of their Democratic opponents, but they ended up in the high 40s. The reality is, they’re going to have to do better than that to win in November."

...Republicans also have a conflict in their messaging. Trump is an asset in the Senate races that will decide the majority but a liability in some of the at-risk congressional districts. That means different approaches to the president not only for each race, but arguably each legislative chamber.

Trump and congressional Republicans are also split on the winning formula. The latter would like to focus almost exclusively on the tax cut. Trump mentions taxes but also wants to talk tough on immigration, trade, MS-13 and national security, emphasizing his full agenda.

Caddell contended the tax cut is still “too controversial” and recommended “weaponizing the economy, impeachment, raising taxes and [the Democrats'] defense of many things that I think are indefensible. Otherwise, the natural structural tendency is to favor the Democrats.” He also suggested Republicans could sharpen their critique of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., by picking their own successor to House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., before the election.

Pelosi has emerged as a powerful GOP counterweight to the Democrats’ use of Trump to motivate voters. Republicans credit anti-Pelosi ads with helping save a seat in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District last year. But some GOP operatives fear their base doesn’t take the threat of a second Pelosi speakership seriously enough to turn them out.

“The Democrats can’t have it two ways,” Caddell said. “They can’t say ‘I’m not for her, but I’ll see what happens. Uh-uh.” Pelosi’s grip on the caucus could be loosened if Democrats win a small majority, amplifying the influence of a small number of defectors, or a particularly large majority where the amount of new blood makes things unpredictable-- and she is certainly at risk if her party doesn’t capture the majority at all.

Democrats are going to force a similar choice on Republicans regarding Trump. In Virginia, where as many as three GOP-held House seats may be at risk, that will be magnified by the candidacy of Republican Senate nominee Corey Stewart, who is arguably more prone to controversy than the president. This isn’t good for vulnerable incumbents such as Rep. Barbara Comstock, who already faces criticism for being insufficiently pro-Trump-- an argument her primary challenger made on his way to winning 40 percent of the vote.

Maybe it would have been more important to mention that 53,843 Democrats voted in VA-10 on primary day compared to just 46,575 Republicans. Comstock should be looking for another job, because having neo-Nazi Corey Stewart at the top of the ticket she's running on isn't going to sit well with independent voters-- nor will it encourage mainstream Republican votes to go to the polls in November. And even if Caddell, Fox and the Washington Examiner don't get it, yesterday the Cook Report switched their rating in the VA-10 race from "toss-up" to leaning Democratic.

Elections Last Night... Some Excitement In South Carolina

Trumpanzee, of course, had to make the primaries all about himself by tweeting an endorsement against South Carolina's Congressman Mark Sanford, whose voting record is pretty pro-Trump (73.1%) in a district where Trump only won with 53.5%-- has called Trump out now and then. Maybe Trump got an idea to attack him yesterday after his meeting with Kim Jong-un, who once killed a general for not applauding him with enough vigor. In any case, everyone in the state knows Sanford because he used to be governor and it is extraordinarily rare for a president to attack an incumbent of his own party. Once the glow of being fucked by Kim Jong-Un wore off, Trump took down the tweet-- this tweet:

Do you watch Southern Charm on TV? SC-01-- most of the state's coast, from Hilton Head through Beaufort and the white parts of Charleston and north beyond McClellanville-- are not really that Trumpish of a district. But Trumpish enough. Largely due to being heavily gerrymandered to put as many African-Americans as possible into Jim Clyburn's 6th CD, the PVI is a prohibitive R+10. The Trump candidate, Katie Arrington, beat Sanford in a 3 person race, the third being Dimitri Cherny, a Berniecrat who switched parties in March. He has a Bernie tattoo on his forearm and has run for Congress twice before (as a Democrat). In November the Democrat running against Arrington will be Joe Cunningham who beat Toby Smith yesterday 60.1% to 39.9%.

• Katie Arrington- 32,499 (50.5%)
• Mark Sanford- 29,969 (46.6%)
• Dimitry Cherny- 1,899 (3.0%)

Meawhile, parenthetically, Senator Bob Corker, got up on the Senate floor yesterday to rip his cowardly Republican colleagues, hours before Sanford lost. Now they'll be even more cowardly... and more likely to serve as his handmaidens and enablers.

In Virginia the only worthwhile congressional race that was worth watching was in the 10th district which includes DC's well-heeled western suburbs, including most of McLean, all of Leesbug, Winchester, Chantilly and Dulles Airport and skirts both the Maryland and West Virginia borders. Incumbent Republican Barbara Comstock is a long-time extremist who has been trying to behave like a mainstream conservative. The DCCC was favoring conservaDem Jennifer Wexton in the 6-person race. The Democratic establishment never learns and they managed to get their worthless and meaningless status quo careerist candidate nominated

• Jennifer Wexton- 22,530 (41.8%)
• Alison Friedman- 12,362 (22.9%)
• Lindsey Stover- 8,660 (16.1%)
• Dan Helmer- 6,738 (12.5%)
• Paul Pelletier- 2,023 (3.8%)
• Julia Biggins- 1,530 (2.8%)

And the KKK guy, Corey Stewart, won the U.S. Senate nomination to run against Tim Kaine. The Republican establishment was sad last night-- and they still are this morning. They don't want their party to be publicly associated with racists and neo-Nazis. Stewart won with 44.8% against Nick Freitas (43.1%) and E.W. Jackson-- maybe even a crazier loon than Stewart-- (12.1%)

Because of the introduction of tiered voting, we won't have the final numbers from Maine until the end of week or possibly next week. But with just over 60% of the votes counted, the progressive candidate in Maine's 2nd congressional district, Jared Golden, was way out front with 50.5% against 2 other candidates, Lucas St. Clair (40.2%) and Craig Olson (9.3%).

With all the hubbub about the primaries today, we don't want to lose track of an extremely important special election that took place in northeastern Wisconsin yesterday, State Senate seat 1-- which includes all of Door and Kewaunee counties and parts of Brown, Manitowoc, Calumet and Outagamie counties.

The former incumbent, state Senator Frank Lasse (R) retired in December to take a position in Scott Walker's administration since his district was so red that Walker seemed sure there was no chance it could possibly flip from red to blue. The Senate seat had gone to Trump by a whopping 18 points in 2016 and in 2014 Walker had won it by 24 points. Oops! Last time Walker made that kind of a calculation, it was for a deep red Senate seat in western Wisconsin, and the special election was won by Democrat Patty Schachtner. Walker, dismayed, called that result a "wake-up call" that should warn Republicans they could be in trouble this fall. He then promptly called off all special elections. He was challenged in the courts and thrashed by the judges, ergo: last night.

Last night, Democrat Caleb Frostman, the former head of the Door County Economic Development Corp, beat state Rep. André Jacque 14,606 (51.4%) to 13,800 (48.6%). The most progressive member of the state Senate, Chris Larson, who worked hard to help Frostman win, was over the moon last night. "This is the third and strongest indication in a few short months that a blue wave is crashing across Wisconsin," he told me. "Wisconsinites are on to the Republican con and nothing is going to keep them from the polls. Underwater, we’ve seen the largest cuts to education, an unbridled attack on the working class, our environment put in danger, and a degradation of our culture of open, transparent government. We are ready to move forward with strong, progressive candidates like Caleb Frostman. Caleb has a background in economic development and knows that helping businesses doesn’t  have to come at the expense of students or access to healthcare. I am proud to pass him the baton of the youngest Democrat in our senate caucus and look forward to working with him to ensure we have even more people fighting for the working class after this fall's elections."

This seat will be up for reelection in November. The Republican control Wisconsin's state Senate is just 17-15 so very winnable by the Democrats in this political environment. Randy Bryce, not a public official but a candidate in the southern Wisconsin, also worked hard to help pull Frostman over the finish line. He implored his own supporters to contribute to Frostman's campaign. To some extent Frostman's victory showed the power Bryce has for other Democrats all around the state and all over the country. He's what Democratic solidarity is all about. Last night Bryce told me that "Wisconsin continues to show what a wave is-- working families coming together, no matter what the Beltway or the pundits say, to stick it to those trying to rip apart our futures. Tonight, Caleb Frostman showed that we aren’t splintering, rather he showed we’re growing. Scott Walker, Donald Trump, Brian Steil, you’re not going to fool working people again. Folks are catching on and are ready to make sure you feel it this November."

DCCC-- Needs To Start Fresh-- With No Rahm Or Pelosi DNA

The Republican Standard describes its oeuvre as offering "a clear, sharp, and trustworthy voice for the center-right in Virginia at every level of government." Just so you know. And this week Alex Lemieux, an assistant editor penned a piece, DCCC Shows Big Money Rules Democratic Party, Not Good Candidates, cticizing the DCCC's role in Virginia's 10th district primary. It could be about almost an district anywhere that the DCCC has prioritized. But because it's a partisan Republican publication, is it trustworthy? Well... what Lemieux wrote is true, and not just about the DCCC, although he chose not to address the shortcomings of the equally detestable NRCC.

"It seems," he wrote, "that the days of going door-to-door, talking with constituents, putting stickers on bumpers, and speaking atop a soap box in effort to seek office in Washington D.C. are over. The idealistic young 'Mr. Smith' types are now greatly overshadowed by big money from outside the district and powers unseen. In his 2017 Farewell Address, President Barack Obama told the Chicago crowd, 'If you’re disappointed by your elected officials, grab a clipboard, get some signatures, and run for office yourself.' However, money now reigns supreme as the ultimate campaign tool, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)." Yes, that's a good description of Nancy Pelosi and her DCCC. And there's not really anything here that we haven't talked about before.

Recently, Deep Sran, a Democrat running to unseat Republican Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (VA-10), gave reporters from The Young Turks (TYT) emails regarding campaign funding in the Northern Virginia congressional district. The email states:

Dear Deep,

Thank you for your commitment to building a stronger america and your hard work as candidate during the 2018 election cycle.

We are setting your Q1 goal at $500,000 raised by March 31st.

The goal is tailor-made for your campaign. It is based on the cost communication with voters in your district and reflects our belief in your fundraising potential. Of course, your DCCC fundraising goal is not the sole benchmark of a successful campaign, but achieving your quarterly goal is an important factor as we distribute resources to your race. Most importantly, achieving your quarterly goal sets you on a path to be able to afford the campaign necessary to win in November 2018.

As always, we are committed to helping you reach your goal and providing you with whatever advice or assistance we can. Please do not hesitate to contact me with your questions and concerns. Thank you again for your continued hard work.

Best,

Ben Ray Luján
DCCC Chairman

“I don’t know whether the Chairman intended to scare candidates out of their races with these goals, but I do know that the DCCC has already raised money for their recruited candidate in my district,” Sran said in a response to the email. “And this email’s hollow offer of support does nothing to convince me that they intend to do anything meaningful for the other eight candidates,” he added in the TYT report.

In 2017, TYT reported a “memo of understanding” was sent by the DCCC to Democrat candidates across the country. However, Sran claims he did not receive the memo. Some recipients of the memo expressed concerned and stated it reflects the DCCC’s moves to elevate its preferred candidates in primaries around the country.

According to the memo, “The candidate agrees to have a campaign budget completed six months prior to their primary and to focus on preserving at least 75% of funds for paid communications.” Moreover, the candidates must agree to, “employ the DCCC’s roster of consultants.”

DCCC vice chairman, Congressman Donald McEachin (VA-4), sent a fundraising email last year on behalf of Jennifer Wexton, another Comstock challenger. Wexton is seen by many in the VA-10 race as having the backing of the national party. Therefore, if Sran’s fundraising goal for the first quarter is $500,000, what is Wexton’s?

According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, in the fourth quarter of 2017, Wexton raised $203,204.35 and currently has $473,796.40 of cash-on-hand. Sran only raised $67,549 during the same quarter and has just $93,245.38 of cash-on-hand.

It is obvious Sran feels slighted by the DCCC and big bucks donors. The DCCC has consistently favored candidates who have the most fundraising vigor, even though it had a diminished effect during the 2016 election cycle because of the shifting national mood. However, the fact that Sran feels disenfranchised is not the real story here. The DCCC and the national party want a self-funding candidate so they can save their resources for other races in 2018.

In the same fiscal quarter, VA-10 Democratic candidate Alison Friedman raised $360,659.29 and reported $687,085.27 cash-on-hand. Wexton, the presumed Democratic nominee, at least on the financial front, is third place to Friedman. It is also interesting to note that out of the $967,138 itemized contributions she has raised, 93 percent has come from other states. Moreover, the top donor city that favors Friedman is not McLean, or Fairfax, or Leesburg, it is San Francisco. Out of the top ten donor counties, seven of them are in California. While the DCCC has a fully-funded candidate in Friedman, her donation trail is indicative that the people of VA-10 are not enamored by her and that other districts need financial support.

The Democrats lost the fundraising battle in 2017. To mitigate the lack of funds, California billionaire Tom Steyer is pumping $30 million into House races this year in effort to unseat Republicans and dethrone President Donald Trump. He even cited Comstock as one of his main targets this election cycle and is a top national target for the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Though, the Koch brothers announced last week they will do battle as well in 2018 with a war chest of $400 million for Republican candidates across the nation.

The narrative within the DNC and DCCC is the same. Authentic candidates, while people may like them, do not serve a fundraising purpose. Instead of pulling out clipboards, the Democrats like it better to see people pulling out checkbooks to forward their agenda.

Keep in mind that the Republican Standard ran this ad on the same page as the report.

Now, as of the end of the 4th quarter FEC reporting cycle (December 31), this chart shows how much each candidate in VA-10 had raised, spent and still has on hand.

The VA-10 candidates who have raised more money from big donors rather than from grassroots contributors:

• Barbara Comstock- $755,959 (plus $831,479 from PACs)
• Alison Friedman- $967,138 (plus $12,000 from PACs)
• Daniel Helmer- $599,492 (plus $8,000 from PACs)
• Jennifer Wexton- $513,384 (plus $23,000 from PACs)
• Lindsey Davis Stover- $548,199 (plus $15,000 from PACs)
• Deep Sran- $212,050
• Paul Pelletier- $191,425

What about self-funders trying to buy seats? The DCCC seems to love these people. These are just the ones I know about, nationally, off the top of my head-- and it doesn't include candidates who shelled out from their own pockets "small amounts" under $700,000-- nor Republicans:

• Andy Thorburn (CA-39)- $2,335,900
• David Trone (MD-06)- $2,281,939
• Gil Cisneros (CA-39)- $1,352,762
• Sarah Jacobs (CA-49)- $1,074,151
• Harley Rouda (CA-48)- $730,500
• Paul Kerr (CA-49)- $712,728

The DCCC Should Open Up A School To Teach People How To Lose Races-- They're VERY Good At It... The Best

Congressman Don McEachin, DCCC Regional Vice Chair

I don’t know Don McEachin. I talked with him one time on the phone and he seemed like a very nice guy. I called him when he was elected-- with no opposition-- to the newly created post of DCCC Regional Vice Chair for the Southeast. He came across as very open-minded and, in fact, very open in all ways. He readily admitted he didn’t know what a DCCC regional vice chair does, told me he isn’t really interested in the job but that Jim Clyburn, the highest ranking African American in Congress, had asked him to run… so he ran. Clyburn didn’t tell him what to do in the job, though, and neither did anyone else. I tried running by some of the hot races in his region with him and he wasn’t familiar with any of them. I suggested he sit down with Ted Lieu, the one DCCC regional vice chair who takes the job seriously, and pick up some tips. He thanked me for the suggestion, seemed enthusiastic about it, and we said we’d stay in touch. I never heard from him again and judging by what came in the mail today, I doubt he got any tips from Ted Lieu either.

McEachin served in the Virginia House of Delegates and then in the Virginia Senate from 1996 until last year when he was elected to the 4th congressional district when Republican Randy Forbes, sensing the new district lines were unwindable for a Republican, moved on. The district stretches from Ginter Park, Highland Park, Westhampton, West of the Boulevard, Gilpin Court, Randolph and Forest Hill in Richmond due south through Hopewell and Petersburg to the North Carolina border, Chesapeake, Suffolk and the suburbs south of Norfolk. In the 2016 primary he had more votes than his Democratic rival and his two Republican rivals combined. On Election Day there was no doubt he was going to Congress. He beat Republican Henrico County Sheriff Mike Wade 191,939 (57.3%) to 143,261 (42.7%). So far this cycle, the Republicans don’t have a candidate running against him. The PVI is D+10.

McEachin didn’t join the New Dems or the Blue Dogs. Nor did he join the Progressive Caucus. He’s a classic backbencher who keeps his head down and doesn’t make waves. Progressive Punch rates him a “C” and his crucial vote score is 84.72, not bad, not good, just so-so, especially for someone in a district as blue as his. His voting record is “moderate,” not moderate in the way the Beltway uses “moderate” when they mean “conservative,” but actually moderate-- a little bit liberal, a little bit conservative, right in between.

All that said, let me tell you why I don’t think he got any tips about how to be a DCCC regional vice chair from Ted Lieu. Ted’s a progressive but when he’s doing his DCCC tasks he’s impartial. His job, as he sees it, is to help all the Democratic candidates running for seats held by Republicans in Alaska, California, Nevada, Washington and Oregon. He’s helpful to progressives and he’s helpful to the New Dems and Blue Dogs as well. Ted may personally favor one candidate over another but he would never act on that. As far as I can see the only congressional candidate he’s endorsed and donated to this cycle is one he knows personally and who is outside of his region, Wisconsin’s Randy Bryce, the guy running against House Speaker Paul Ryan. Ted spends time raising money for the L.I.E.U. PAC-- Randy was out in California a few months ago helping him do that in fact-- and that money can’t be used in Ted’s own reelection campaign, only to help other candidates. He’s eager to start using it after the primaries to help the winning Democrats beat Republicans like Darrell Issa, Ed Royce, Mimi Walters, Dana Rohrabacher, Jeff Denham, David Valadao and Steve Knight. Recently I ran into Rohrabacher who was bitching to me that Ted was doing a healthcare town hall in the middle of Rohrabacher’s district. Ted wasn't doing the appearance for progressive Laura Oatman nor for New Dem bobbsey twins Harley and Hans nor for the completely out-of-touch-guy who proudly describes himself as a “Reagan Democrat,” Omar Siddiqui. No, he was trying to help all of the candidates by raising awareness of Rohrabacher’s terrible voting record on healthcare. So what’s all this got to do with poor Don McEachin?

One of the hottest races in McEachin’s region is VA-10, Barbara Comstock’s very swingy district in the DC suburbs, primarily Loudoun and Fairfax counties. The PVI is only D+1 but Comstock is seen as ultra vulnerable. Although Romney had narrowly edged Obama in 2012 by about a point, Hillary killed Trump last year in the district, beating him 52.2% to 42.2%. The DCCC and EMILY’s List had gotten together to find the absolutely worst candidate they could find to run against Comstock, a meaningless, pointless nothing candidate whose ass Comstock kicked from Winchester to Leeburg and McLean and down to Chantilly and Manassas. With Hillary racking up big wins everywhere in the district the completely pathetic DCCC/EMILY’s List candidate lost 52.9% to 47.1%. Now that’s what I called failed candidate recruitment. But guess what… the DCCC and EMILY’s List have worked really hard to duplicate exactly what they did in 2016. They found another pointless, right-of-center, nothing candidate to push. This time though there is a whole bevy of more exciting Democrats running, candidates who are part of the zeitgeist, to replace Comstock, not to ask voters to pick someone who is an almost-Comstock but not as bad. So over the weekend, the DCCC regional vice chair, moderate Congressman Donald McEachin sent out this e-mail on behalf of this cycle’s DCCC/EMILY’s List candidate, Jennifer Wexton, the least likely candidate to actually win in November.

I served with Jennifer in Virginia’s State Senate, where I saw her commitment to her constituents and her willingness to go the extra mile to improve their lives first-hand. That’s why I know she will be an advocate for families across Virginia’s 10th district in Congress, and that’s why I’m proudly supporting her campaign.

And I’m writing now, Howie, because Jennifer needs your help. Tomorrow is the end of the fundraising quarter, but her team tells me they still have $1,445 left to raise before the books close.

Pitch in $10 or more to help Jennifer before her numbers go public here.

Jennifer has what it takes to win this race, Howie, but this campaign to turn VA-10 blue is going to get expensive, and she’s going to need every dollar to compete.

She is running a grassroots campaign powered by donors like you-- and she needs your support to end 2017 strong. Chip in here before the deadline to help her meet her Q4 goal.

Thanks,
Rep. Donald McEachin

He should resign as DCCC vice chair immediately. And whomever wrote the idiotic e-mail should leave politics and ad writing.

As far as I can tell there are 9 Democrats competing for the party nomination: Alison Friedman, Daniel Helmer, Dave Hanson, Deep Sran, Jennifer Wexton, Julia Biggins, Lindsey Davis Stover, Michael Pomerleano, Paul Pelletier, Kimberly Adams and Shak Hill. When you call out the DCCC for interfering in primaries they always deny it and when you press them and threaten to out Ben Ray Lujan as a closet case, they admit they do it but only to help “serious” candidates against vanity candidates and people just taking up energy but who (they deem to) have no chance. By that they mean, they interfere on behalf of the candidates who are raising the most money. But the crap candidate they and EMILY’s List are pushing has been a tremendous disappointment and she isn’t even raising the most money. These are the candidates who filed FEC reports as of September 30, along with how much each had raised:

• Alison Friedman- $694,187
• Dan Helmer- $528,860
• Jennifer Wexton- $457,040
• Lindsey Davis Stover- $443,492
• Deep Sran- $170,328
• Shak Hill- $53,052
• Dave Hanson- $20,978 (entirely self-funded)
• Kimberly Adams- $7,938
• Julien Modica- $34 (but with $548,402 in his war-chest from a couple of abortive U.S. Senate runs in 2008 and 2012)

Anyway, the DCCC tried running a dull moderate last year and got wiped out. So, incapable of ever learning anything, they’re trying to disadvantage better candidates-- at the very least Alison Friedman and Lindsey Stover are better-- in order to win the seat for a garden variety moderate in the hopes that even shitty candidates will win if the tsunami is big enough-- and when you pride yourself on being the lesser of two evils party, a big tsunami is all you can ever really hope for.

Is The DCCC Trying To Bum Rush Their Candidate Into The Nomination In VA-10 By Getting Rid Of The Primary?

VA-10 is one of the most flippable congressional districts anywhere. The district's PVI last cycle was R+2. This cycle the PVI is D+1. Obama beat McCain 51-48%, Romney beat Obama 50-49% and then Trump lost to Hillary by ten full points-- 52.2% to 42.2%. The DCCC contested the district last cycle with one of their unelectable garbage candidates, LuAnn Bennett, who was beaten by Republican incumbent Barbara Comstock, 210,791 (52.7%) to 187,712 (46.9%). Comstock spent $5,291,182 to Bennett's $2,821,082. Outside spending was gigantic-- $6,309,347 from the DCCC and Pelosi's SuperPAC and $7,547,250 from the NRCC and Ryan's SuperPAC.

There are at least 9 Democrats vying for the nomination for 2018-- Alison Friedman, Daniel Helmer, Dave Hanson, Deep Sran, Julien Modica, Kimberly Adams, Lindsey Davis Stover, Michael Pomerleano and the DCCC candidate, Jennifer Wexton. This evening, Politico reporter Kevin Robillard broke the story that there may not be a primary to pick the Democratic nominee. Robillard reported tonight that VA-10 "Democratic officials... are considering picking their nominee through a convention rather than a primary, a step opposed by all but one of the leading candidates: Virginia state Sen. Jennifer Wexton." The DCCC is nervous because the progressives in the race, Alison Friedman and Lindsey Davis Stover, plus Daniel Helmer, all outraised their conservative pick, Jennifer Wexton.

The Democratic committee in Virginia’s 10th District met on Sunday to discuss how to pick their nominee to challenge Comstock in 2018. Politico obtained an audio recording of a lengthy debate between committee members over whether to hold a regular state-run primary, a more limited “firehouse primary,” a caucus or a convention.

“We haven’t ruled anything out,” said Zach Prukowski, the chair of the 10th District Democrats, who said he was still meeting with candidates and activists to determine the best approach. The committee will make its final decision at a meeting in November.

Virginia law enables parties to pick their nominating processes, but Democrats have almost always held primaries in recent years.

...Wexton’s campaign was the only one of four contacted by Politico that didn’t explicitly favor a primary.

“The members of the 10th are political veterans of Northern Virginia and I'm sure they'll make the choice that's in the best interest of the district,” Wexton spokesman Ray Rieling wrote in an email. “Senator Wexton is looking forward to competing in whatever nominating method they choose. The number one priority here should be Democrats working together to beat Barbara Comstock so the district has real representation that doesn't hide in Washington.”

The three other top contenders all wanted to compete in a primary.

"Every voice deserves to be heard when choosing a nominee. Alison Friedman strongly supports allowing voters' voices to be heard in a primary election, where voters across the district can easily participate,” campaign manager Peter Dougherty said.

“We cannot be the party of the future if we stand for the politics of the past,” Stover said. “This is clear, we either trust the voters or we don't-- I do.”

“Anyone who’s afraid of a primary shouldn’t be running,” Helmer said in a brief phone interview. “Any candidate who’s running to represent Democrats should live up to our ideals and want a free and open primary.”

Several people are whispering that the DCCC is behind the move which is not likely to go over well with activists and will probably guarantee low turn-out and reelection for Comstock. One member of the committee said that "we’re Democrats, we want to make this more democratic, and less rigged. The way you do that is to go with the most participation you can possibly get. Which would be, in my vote, the state-run primary.”

Lindsey Davis Stover's campaign released a statement this evening calling for Wexton "to reverse her position and support a full and fair state-run primary to determine the Democratic nominee who will run against Barbara Comstock in 2018 " and launching petition website calling for a primary. “We cannot be the party of the future if we stand for the politics of the past. It is simple, we either trust the voters or we don't-- I do. If we can’t stand up for the basic notion that voters should have the right to vote, then we forfeit our right to lead on any other issue. Today I’m calling on Jennifer Wexton to put trust in the voters and reverse her stance. In this election, we have an opportunity to encourage record levels of participation that will help us defeat Barbara Comstock. The Democratic nomination should be earned, not anointed."