Cook: Trump Is Dragging Down Republican Candidates With Him

Cook is usually a lagging indicator. They do not move on a dime. If they move a race from "leans Republican" to "toss up," it probably means you should expect a big loss for the GOP. Yesterday, Amy Walter, one of their top prognosticators, used the word "tsunami." It's July; I would interpret that to mean Cook foresees a mass GOP drowning in November-- an actual; threat to to basic well-being of the party's existence. This isn't just about swing states and swing districts-- you can start anticipating painful Republican losses in "solid red" states like Alaska, Texas, Arizona, Georgia and Montana. And that isn't just about electoral votes but about Republicans up for reelection-- or running for-- congressional and state and county legislative seats as well. "This election," wrote Walter, "is looking more like a Democratic tsunami than simply a Blue wave. President Trump, mired in some of the lowest job approval ratings of his presidency, is trailing Biden by significant margins in key battleground states like Pennsylvania (8 points), Michigan (9 points), and Wisconsin (9 points). He’s even running behind Biden in his firewall states of Florida and North Carolina."

She doesn't understand the difference between a Blue wave and an anti-red wave. There's no enthusiasm for Biden or the crappy party he "leads." All the enthusiasm is for stuffing Trump down a toilet and flushing. But the Beltway insiders will never understand that and will continue babbling like chimps about "a Blue wave." Fine, who cares; it ends up with the same results anyway.

Cook changed some of their electoral college predictions "to reflect this reality." All have moved towards the Democrats and all are laughably behind reality. Their best predictions are always the day after the election anyway. They move Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska’s 2nd district from toss up to lean Democrat. And Maine, which for whatever insane reason, was in the lean Democrat column moved to likely Democrat. Cook is so funny. They also moved Maine's 2nd district from likely Republican to just lean Republican. And she wrote that "Georgia has joined Arizona, North Carolina and Florida in the Toss Up column, although, at this point, Biden would be slightly favored to win at least Arizona and Florida."

Even Republican strategists she spoke with understand that Trump has now reached "a permanent loss of trust and faith of the majority of voters. In talking with strategists on both sides this last week, it’s also clear that Trump is dragging Republican congressional candidates with him as well. Plugged in strategists on both sides tell us that Trump is running behind in districts he easily carried in 2016. As one GOP strategist told us this week, 'I’d be surprised if any House GOP challenger is able to outperform Trump-- they are tied to him.' Meanwhile, Democratic Senate candidates-- even those in second and third-tier races-- are pulling in eye-popping second-quarter fundraising totals."




I spoke to a handful of candidates running strong in prohibitively red districts. Iowa progressive, J.D. Scholten, pointed out that his right-wing Trumpist opponent, Randy Feenstra "ran his primary campaign on the theme that he's best positioned to 'deliver' for Trump. But Trump's policies have systematically ravaged Iowa's farmers and rural communities in everything from the disastrous trade war to abuses of the Renewable Fuel Standard to corporate bailouts. Iowans don't need nor want another career politician who's beholden to corporate interests and afraid to stand up to power. We understand why folks voted for Trump-- they were looking for change and solutions, but unfortunately, that's not what we got. Our campaign is gaining traction with Trump voters, Republicans, and voters across the political spectrum because we're fighting for them: farmers, workers, and rural communities."

Georgia progressive Lisa Ring told me that through her experiences she's concluded that the most dangerous thing we can do is assume we can predict political outcomes. "Every action," she said, "has the potential of harming or propelling a campaign but the ever-changing nature of politics renders an important development, insignificant within hours. In general, the failures of the Trump administration should be harmful to every legislator or candidate who remains loyal to it. However, it is what Democrats choose to do with the failings of the GOP that will make a difference. Or not.

"Simply pointing out that Rep. Buddy Carter is a Trump lackey who has followed his every direction in order to gain Trump’s official endorsement, is not enough," she continued. "Instead, I must remind the people of my district that Carter and Trump worked hand in hand to destroy the middle class, working class, and disadvantaged, by taking away whatever healthcare they had, letting small businesses fail, allowing our infrastructure to crumble, protections to be rolled back, and failing the millions of unemployed, as well as the millions of infected Americans who were provided no assistance and no leadership during a pandemic that is not even close to being over. 2016 and beyond, should have taught us not to rely on polls or predictors, but rather to continue to focus on the issues, and reach voters one on one. These times are unprecedented and we cannot sit back and analyze with numbers, beliefs that defy all reason. Instead let us hit the streets(virtually, if it must be) and connect truthfully to people who need answers and solutions to the very real problems they face daily."

Texan Julie Oliver shared something that has changed in a pretty big way since the 2018 campaign. "What we’ve seen over the last two election cycles is a growing number of 'independent' voters in TX-25. Some folks share that they’re former Republicans who have lost their party and will never vote for another Trumpublican, like Rep. Roger Williams, again. Sometimes we encounter these newly independent voters when we are phone-banking, or in the pre-pandemic world when we were able to canvass, but what we are seeing in this election cycle that really didn’t happen in the midterms is that many former Republicans reach out to our campaign unsolicited."

Yesterday, Astead Herndon wrote specifically about the Trumpist base in Georgia and Arizona being nonplussed about the GOP establishment Senate candidates. "Many Republican candidates face a perplexing electoral landscape this year, given that Mr. Trump’s conduct has endeared him to the party’s most conservative groups, but has soured some suburban moderates and seniors who are vital parts of any swing state coalition. These candidates are walking a tightrope, made more difficult by a voter base that doesn’t just want to elect Republicans, but rather loyal foot soldiers who take on Mr. Trump’s political and cultural enemies. It is the long-term political war over how Trumpism is best expressed-- not the short-term battle over Mr. Trump himself-- and how a party that has been driven by early-morning tweets for four years will seek to survive the next 40."

In the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections, a record number of House Republicans chose not to seek re-election rather than face conflict with the conservative base, and even a favorable Senate map saw Republicans lose in states like Arizona and Nevada.

With Mr. Trump on the ballot this year, it will be even harder for candidates to paper over the differences, and the uneasy relationship between the party’s most right-wing voters and the statewide Republicans like Ms. Loeffler and Ms. McSally who rely on their votes is bursting into the open.

Governors in both Arizona and Georgia are currently confronting this political challenge, after opening up their states’s economies at the urging of the president and those in the media who support him, only to face pressure to reverse course after coronavirus cases surged.

Polling also shows that Ms. Loeffler and Ms. McSally are underdogs in their respective races, facing an energized Democratic electorate in addition to their inner-party wrangling.

...A recent survey of Arizona voters from the New York Times and Siena College found Ms. McSally trailing her Democratic opponent, the former astronaut and U.S. Navy Captain Mark Kelly, by nine percentage points.

In a recent Fox News poll of the Arizona race, just 73 percent of Republicans supported Ms. McSally, while 88 percent of Democrats supported Mr. Kelly.

“They don’t buy her as a bona fide very conservative Republican,” said Chuck Coughlin, a longtime Republican political consultant in Arizona.

The candidates’ struggles speak to how real divisions among Republicans have been obscured by Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016, and could erupt again should he lose in November.

...Several Republicans in Arizona and Georgia said in interviews that the problem is not with Ms. Loeffler’s or Ms. McSally’s messages, but whether the base is buying the candidates as authentic.  As a sign of their shared troubles among Republicans, some of the most negative publicity for both senators in the past year has come courtesy of Fox News, the cable outlet that is often sympathetic to the president.

...“The electorate has changed a lot,” Mr. Coughlin said, adding that the current Republican Party has “moved away from that narrative that people were originally attracted to. And in my view, has become one that’s reactive to the identity politics of the left.”

Status Quo Did So Much More Than Just VOTE For The War Against Iraq-- But Now He Lies About His Role

If you're considering voting for Status Quo Joe in a primary in your state, it's very important for you to watch this video above about why the Senate authorized the war against Iraq-- which included Biden attacking fellow Democrats who realized what a terrible idea starting that war was. Without the help from Biden (and the other worthless Joe, Lieberman) George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could never have started that war-- and would certainly not have had the catastrophic Authorization for Use of Military Force, which still is in place and still haunts U.S. foreign policy. Why does Status Quo Joe lie about his role today when he's running for the Democratic nomination for president?

His latest presidential run looks like it's unwinding and the chances of him being in the running after March 3rd are almost nonexistent. Every poll shows him losing steam... everywhere-- and at a time when Democratic prospects against Trump are rising. This morning, in an analytical piece by Chris Kahn for Reuters, we saw that the Blue Wave-- or, more accurately, the anti-Red Wave-- that swept the country in 2018, is still strong and growing. "Americans’ interest in voting is growing faster in large cities dominated by Democrats than in conservative rural areas... If the trend lasts until Election Day on Nov. 3, it would be a reversal from the 2016 election when rural turnout outpaced voting in urban areas, helping Trump narrowly win the White House."

Even as Trump commands rock-solid support among Republicans, voters’ interest in going to the polls appears to be growing faster among those who disapprove of Trump than among those who approve of him, according to experts who reviewed the data.

The advantage in urban political engagement extends deep into the most competitive battleground states that Trump won by razor-thin margins four years ago, the data shows.

In large urban areas of the upper Midwest, a region that includes swing states Michigan and Wisconsin, for example, the number of people who said they were “certain” to vote in the upcoming presidential election rose by 10 percentage points to 67% compared with survey responses from 2015.

In smaller upper Midwest communities, the number of people similarly dedicated to voting rose by only about 1 point to 60% in that same four-year period.

Overall, the number of “certain” voters rose by 7 percentage points nationally from 2015 to 2019. It increased by more than that in the largest metropolitan areas, rising by 9 points in communities with between 1 million and 5 million people and 8 points in metros with at least 5 million people.

Smaller and rural communities lagged behind. The number of “certain” voters rose by 5 points in sparsely populated, Republican-dominated “non-metro” areas.

The rise in urban political engagement helped Democrats win political victories last year, including governor’s races in conservative-leaning Kentucky and Louisiana.

It may have also contributed to elevated voting levels in some of the more heavily populated communities and college towns in Iowa and New Hampshire, which held their presidential nominating contests earlier this month.

“Democrats are very angry,” said Nicholas Valentino, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, who reviewed some of the poll findings for Reuters.

“Many see this administration as an existential threat to the constitutional order. They’re standing ready to participate to try to change the course of this country.”

...In a “battleground” region that included Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona and Colorado, the number of “certain” voters rose by 9 percentage points in large metropolitan areas that have a population of at least 5 million, and 8 points in areas with 1 to 5 million, while it rose by 4 points in smaller, non-metros.

Among those living in the Upper Midwest, a region that includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, the poll found a jump in political engagement in some of the same urban areas where Democrats fell short in 2016.

Altogether, 67% of people living in metro areas of at least 1 million people rated themselves as a “10” or “certain to vote” in the 2019 poll. That is up by about 10 percentage points from 2015.

In comparison, 63% of those who lived in smaller communities of less than 1 million rated themselves as similarly certain to vote, which is up 2 points from 2015.

Trump won Michigan and Wisconsin by less than 40,000 votes combined, in part because of depressed turnout in Wayne County, Michigan, and Milwaukee, the largest city in Wisconsin.

In the Southeast, voter engagement is surging in large metros like Miami-Dade in South Florida and Atlanta where Democrats outnumber Republicans by double-digit margins.

In 2019, about 60% said they were certain to vote in the presidential election, up 8 points from 2015. In metros with less than 1 million people, 64% said they were certain to vote, up by 7 points. In smaller non-metropolitan areas, the number of people who were locked in on voting rose by 6 points from 2015 to 60%.

The poll found that 65% of residents in the Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City and other big Southwestern metro areas planned to vote in the upcoming election. That is up by 9 percentage points from 2015. Political engagement rose by nearly the same amount-- 8 points-- in smaller metros, but it was unchanged in rural areas of the Southwest.

These numbers-- and the political demise of dull centrists with no vision beyond their own careers, like Biden and Mayor Pete-- is also predicative of big wins for Democratic candidates running for Republican-held Senate seats in Iowa, Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and maybe even Texas.

Unless You're Looking For Comedy, Ignore Pundits Telling You Trump Is Going To Win The Electoral College; He Won't

I'm not saying the ad helped Beshear, but it didn't hurt him

David Wasserman presents himself-- and it widely accepted as-- as an elections expert and he does know more about it than most high school students. But his report for NBC Thursday about Trump advancing his electoral college edge despite losses in the suburbs, is idiotic. Imagine if someone was stupid enough to say Democratic wins in gubernatorial races in Kentucky and Louisiana-- two of the reddest states in America and neither of which is part of any Democratic path to victory-- were good news for Trump. Wasserman thinks so.

"Democrats are rightfully ecstatic that they won two of the three 2019 elections for governor in deep red Southern states," Wasserman concedes, "overcoming relentless campaign visits by President Donald Trump. But in truth, their twin triumphs had less to do with Trump and more to do with GOP Gov. Matt Bevin's toxicity in Kentucky and Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards's popularity in Louisiana." Is that so? This is where his argument becomes fatuous.

He admits that Edwards and Beshear ran well ahead of Hillary's 2016 support virtually everywhere in their states. Beshear even won coal mining counties and the ones he didn't win, he increased Democratic competitiveness in-- counties, by the way, that went for Bernie very strongly in 2016, counties looking for real change, not for the fake change the Democratic establishment was promising nor for the fake change Trump has delivered. "But," wrote Wasserman, instead of 'and', "the results also reaffirmed where Democrats' true opportunity lies in 2020: suburbs with lots of college-educated whites."

Wasserman further undermined his argument by pointing out that "Democratic victories in Kentucky (where Trump won by a huge 30 points in 2016) and Louisiana (where Trump won by 20 points), are all the more impressive because turnout skyrocketed compared to the races four years ago. In Kentucky, the number of votes cast spiked 51 percent over 2015, and in Louisiana, votes cast surged 31 percent-- far higher than the 21 percent increase in Mississippi, where Democrats fell short." He further concedes that "continued migration of highly college-educated suburbs away from Republicans in the Trump era is welcome news for Democrats. The Kentucky and Louisiana results are a continuation of midterm gains for Democrats in places like the suburbs of Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Charleston and Oklahoma City."

His argument, though, is this turnout was through the roof for both Democrats and Republicans but Democrats won because of white college-educated voters in the suburbs of Cincinnati and New Orleans and there are fewer whites with college educations living in the swing states he identifies: Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Arizona and Nevada. He wrote that "Overall, Democrats' narrow wins in both races wouldn't have been possible without changing suburban attitudes. In the aggregate, blue gains in the 20 Kentucky counties and Louisiana parishes with the highest shares of whites with college degrees-- concentrated in the New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Louisville, Lexington and Cincinnati metro areas-- were barely enough to offset Republican gains elsewhere."

He contends that Democrats didn't do well in other parts of Kentucky and Louisiana and he's just flat out wrong. Beshear won lots of counties Hillary lost and beat her in virtually every county in the state. Maybe Wasserman wrote this when he was in a tryptophan turkey coma but Beshear's totals in non-suburban white college educated counties swamped Hillary's. Take Warren County (Bowling Green) a GOP strong hold and home of Rand Paul. In 2016 Bernie beat Hillary narrowly in the primary-- 5,365 (49.9%) to 4,829 (44.9%) and then Trump trounced her in the general election, 28,673 (59.2%) to 16,966 (35.0%). This time Beshear flipped Warren County, beating Bevin 18,249 (50.8%) to 17,118 (47.6%). This is exactly the kind of county Wasserman meant wasn't going blue. But it did. The key comparison is Hillary 35.0% and Beshear 50.8%. Beshear flipped 21 counties that Trump won, only 2 in the Cincinnati suburbs.

But let's look at counties Bevin won. Pike is a red bastion. Trump beat Hillary in a massive landslide-- 19,760 (80.1%) to 4,277 (17.4%). Bevin won but, disproving Wasserman's theory entirely, it was much closer-- 9,011 (54.3%) to (42.9%). Key numbers: 42.9% is way bigger than 17.4%. Let's go way to the other side of the state to traditionally Republican McCracken County, where Trump trounced Hillary 20,774 (66.4%) to 9,134 (29.2%). Again, Beshear did way better, winning 41.6% of the vote. This was the way it went throughout the state-- Beshear beating Hillary's totals everywhere. Even in Trump's best-performing county in Kentucky, Leslie-- as red a hellhole as you'll find anywhere-- Trump beat Hillary 89.4% to 8.9%-- Beshear improved Democratic performance in comparison to Hillary. She lost with 8.9%. He lost with 22.5%.

And as for Kentucky's two blue counties, Jefferson (Louisville) and Fayette (Lexington), black voters in Louisville were largely responsible for Hillary's 54.1% to 40.7% triumph over Trump. Beshear beat Bevin 67.0% to 42.6%, again, making a wish-mosh of Wasserman's bullshit theories. In Fayette, where Trump appeared on election eve with Bevin this year, he clowned onstage, "If you lose, it sends a really bad message. You can't let that happen to me." They did let it happen to him. In 2016 Hillary beat Trump is Fayette County 69,776 (51.2%) to 56,890 (41.8%). Last month Beshear beat Trump's candidate there-- with a hugely higher Democratic turnout than in the presidential election-- 73,397 (65.5%) to 36,915 (33.0%).

As for the swing states Wasserman identified as not having enough white college suburbanites for Dems to count on for the electoral college, this is even crazier. In every single one of these states-- no exceptions-- Trump's favorability since 2017 has plummeted drastically. Here are the most recent numbers in the Wasserman states:

• Maine- down 21 points to minus 13
• New Hampshire- down 21 points to minus 20
• Pennsylvania- down 19 points to minus 9
• North Carolina- down 21 points to minus 3
• Florida- down 24 points to minus 2
• Michigan- down 21 points to minus 13
• Wisconsin- down 23 points to minus 17
• Minnesota- down 18 points to minus 14
• Nevada- down 24 points to minus 14
• Arizona- down 24 points to minus 4

Ahhh... Arizona, a red state that is looking more and more wobbly, especially now that Trump tops the party. Being underwater by 4 points now doesn't mean Trump can't win the state's 11 electoral votes next year. He can, but he's going to have to fight for them-- in a state Republicans haven't had fight for in decades. Yesterday Los Angeles Times reporter Mark Barabak, focusing on Arizona, noted that Trump has turned the suburbs into a GOP disaster zone and asked if it dooms his reelection. Since Trump occupied the White House, "the orderly subdivisions and kid-friendly communities that ring the nation’s cities," wrote Barabak, "have become a deathtrap for Republicans, as college-educated and upper-income women flee the party in droves, costing the GOP its House majority and sapping the party’s strength in state capitals and local governments nationwide. The dramatic shift is also reshaping the 2020 presidential race, elevating Democratic hopes in traditional GOP strongholds like Arizona and Georgia, and forcing Trump to redouble efforts to boost rural turnout to offset defectors who, some fear, may never vote Republican so long as the president is on the ballot."

Me The People by Nancy Ohanian

He talked to a lifelong Republican in Arizona who said she now considers Trump "reprehensible as a human being" and the Republican Party morally bankrupt. She re-registered as an independent and is likely to vote for a Democrat for the first time in her life.

“It’s amazing the change, in just the last few years,” said Q. Whitfield Ayres, a pollster who has spent decades strategizing for Republican campaigns and causes. “It’s not any one place. It’s everywhere.”

That includes Arizona, where in 2018 Kyrsten Sinema, a congresswoman from the Phoenix suburbs, became the first Democrat in 30 years to win a U.S. Senate seat. She ran as a centrist focused on bipartisan problem-solving, a direct appeal to pragmatic suburban voters, and her success is seen as a model for turning the state from red to blue in 2020-- or at least making Arizona competitive in a way it has not been in decades.

With 11 electoral votes, Arizona is a bigger prize than Wisconsin-- a Midwestern battleground both parties view as a key to the election-- and the Grand Canyon State is expected to draw lavish attention and a fortune’s worth of advertising over the next year. Visiting last month, Vice President Mike Pence said he and Trump “are going to be in and out of Arizona a lot.”

The ancestral home of conservative icon Barry Goldwater and John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, Arizona has undergone a slow but steady transformation as the growing Latino population and a flood of newcomers from places like California erode Republicans’ long-standing hegemony.

The movement has been accelerated by Trump and his alienation of voters in typically Republican suburbs like Scottsdale, Gilbert and here in Mesa, which has grown from a far-flung satellite of Phoenix into the state’s third-largest city.

...[S]urveys have consistently shown most suburban women have little regard for Trump.

The exodus stems not so much from his policies-- many of which are standard GOP fare, like cutting taxes and regulations-- but rather the president’s behavior: the bullying, belligerence and ad hominem insults.

“Sometimes I want to print out every single one of his Tweets and tape them to people’s doors,” said Christie Black, a 35-year-old stay-at-home mom who abandoned the GOP and voted independent in 2016 rather than support Trump. “I want them to see in writing that these are the things he’s saying. Those are worth tax cuts to you?”

“Yeah,” her brunch companion, Kaija Flake Thompson, chimed in sarcastically. “We have no moral compass, but, hey, we have conservative judges!”

Neither lapsed Republican has decided on a 2020 candidate, though both like Pete Buttigieg, the youthful mayor of South Bend, Ind. Black, a self-described conservative, said she could even vote in good conscience for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, with her vision of a vastly expanded federal government.

“We would still have our checks and balances,” Black said, which she fears are steadily eroding under Trump. “I think right now the most important thing is to get those principles of democracy tied down, get that return to regular order, and then we can worry and get back to squabbling about conservative versus liberal.”

Wasserman largely missed the scope of the 2018 anti-Trump/anti-Republican wave and it appears like he's downright determined to miss an even bigger 2020 anti-Trump/anti-Republican wave as it gathers irresistible strength.

2020-- Another Anti-Trump/Anti-Red Wave? Or An Actual Blue Wave Too This Time?

The Democratic tent-too-big Party didn't have anything much to offer voters in 2016 and millions of voters flocked to Trump. Two years later, many of those voters-- as well as some non-voters-- understand the scope of the catastrophe that Trump is. And they flocked to vote for Democrats running for Congress. Over 40 red seats flipped. I spent much of 2018 expelling why the coming wave was not a blue wave at all, but an anti-Trump wave, at best an anti-red wave. But "blue wave" is far too positive to a description. As a party, the Democrats still weren't offering anything to voters-- except "we're better than Trump." It was enough to flip those 40-some-odd seats. Could they have flipped more seats with the kind of positive message that actually would have inspired a blue wave? Absolutely. They could have picked up 60 seats instead of 40, or 70 seats... maybe 80.

Not random seats, seats with enough independent voters to swing elections-- like GA-07, where Republican incumbent Rob Woodall was reelected with just 50.1% of the vote, or MI-06, where GOP incumbent Fred Upton won with just 50.2% or TX-23, where Republican incumbent Will Hurd was elected with a paltry 49.2%. Republicans like Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-03), Ann Wagner (MO-02), John Carter (TX-31), Michael McCaul (TX-10), Chris Collins (NY-27), Devin Nunes (CA-22), Rodney Davis (IL-13), Don Bacon (NE-02), John Katko (NY-24), Doug LaMalfa (CA-01), Vern Buchanan (FL-16), Brain Fitzpatrick (PA-01), George Holding (NC-02), Kenny Marchant (TX-24), Lee Zeldin (NY-01) wouldn't have stood a chance in a blue wave. All of them had stomach-churning close calls.

The Democrats may offer the same next year: nothing. Or, as Matt Yglesias, put it last week: Joe Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020. He's another Iraq War hawk, another Wall Street shill (the senator from MBNA), and another flip-flopper with terrible instincts who has wrong on every big issue. (Yesterday, in an e-mail from her campaign with the subject line "Joe Biden," Team Warren wrote "Elizabeth doesn’t host private fundraisers or take money from federally registered lobbyists or PACs. Instead, we’re building a broad grassroots movement where a lot of people chip in a little at a time to build something big... How did Joe Biden raise so much money in one day? Well, it helps that he hosted a swanky private fundraiser for wealthy donors at the home of the guy who runs Comcast's lobbying shop. Elizabeth is building a grassroots movement without holding any big-money private fundraisers where you can only talk to her if you write a big check first. Without taking a dime from federally registered lobbyists or PACs of any kind. It’s the right thing to do."

Elizabeth Warren, like Bernie, actually offers, reasons for a blue-wave. In fact, yesterday, reporting for BuzzFeed News, Ruby Cramer wrote that in hosting something like 4,700 simultaneous organizing events on Saturday, Faiz Shakir, Bernie's campaign manager "boldly predicted that their candidate would help bring 'a wave up and down the Democratic ballot' on Nov. 3, 2020... You're not only going to have Sen. Sanders winning the White House, you are going to see a wave-- a wave up and down the Democratic ballot. That is what we are fighting for."

Claire Sandberg, the campaign’s national organizing director, called the Saturday organizing event “historic”-- the “largest distributed day of action ever in a presidential campaign,” she said, referring to a model of “distributed organizing” that aims to build volunteer networks in areas without official campaign staff.

Sandberg, who also spoke at the pre-taped Boston event, said that house parties were scheduled to be held in all 50 states, including at hundreds of college campuses, as well as 30 other countries from Japan to Senegal.

"Many voices will attempt to diminish what we're building here together and argue that our movement has run its course,” Sandberg said. “The reality is that we grow larger every day.”

To ensure that the campaign is able to harness the energy they are confident Sanders still inspires-- and in a show of organization they lacked during his first presidential campaign-- officials have built a new online app called "Bern."

Through the app, aides said, volunteer leaders ("ambassadors for this campaign") will be encouraged to recruit other volunteers and identify new supporters. The app will also help volunteers help register people to vote, request a Democratic primary ballot, and remind people of voter registration deadlines in key states.

"A movement that grows is a movement that wins," Shakir said.

Sanders is scheduled to spend Saturday afternoon calling into various house parties, an aide said.

"We talk about us, not me. Because this is a very profound statement. What does it mean? It's not just a bumper sticker. What it means-- and I believe this as someone who's been involved in politics 13 years in the Senate, 16 years in the House-- is that no president, not the best intentioned, not the most honest person in the world, no one person can do it alone."

"And remember," Sanders said moments later, pumping his hand in the air. "It's not Bernie! It's us! Don't forget that: Us! Us! Us!"