Many Republican Senators Would Like To Distance Themselves From Trump-- But It's WAY Too Late For That

Several states run by governors refusing the work on flattening the curve are seeing an increase in confirmed coronavirus cases already-- and it's going to get a lot worse in these states. On Monday, Texas saw new 535 confirmed new cases. Yesterday there were 655 new cases. Florida has 610 new cases Monday and 708 yesterday. Iowa had 392 new cases Monday and 508 Tuesday. Oklahoma had 27 Monday, 130 yesterday. South Dakota had 33 Monday, 68 Tuesday.

Trump has been interfering to make it worse, primarily by encouraging his death cult base to "liberate" themselves from social distancing restrictions and by pressuring governors to discard them and open for business. Yesterday, though, he took a bigger step, announcing that he was ready to take aggressive action to force meat processing and packing plants to stay open, despite rampant contagion in the industry. He says he'll use the Defense Production Act to order the companies to stay open and also claims-- no one believes him-- that he'll provide additional protective gear for employees. He's aiming at processing plants supplying beef, chicken, eggs and pork.

Illnesses in the meat-processing industry and shifts in demand after restaurants closed have disrupted the supply chain. Dairy farmers are dumping milk that can’t be sold to processors, broiler operations have been breaking eggs to reduce supplies and some fruit and vegetables are rotting in fields amid labor and distribution disruptions.

Many low-income Americans, meanwhile, have been waiting in long lines at food banks, which have reported shortages.

Asked about the country’s food supply, Trump said: “There’s plenty of supply.”

The Defense Production Act allows the government broad power to direct industrial production in crises. Trump has previously invoked the law-- or threatened to invoke it-- in order to increase the supply of medical gear including ventilators, masks and swabs to test for coronavirus infection.

...Trump acted one day after Iowa’s two U.S. senators and its governor urged the administration to invoke the DPA to keep meatpackers open and reopen closed facilities “as soon as it is possible to do so safely.” Iowa produces one-third of the nation’s pork supply, according to the state officials.

Across the country, at least 6,500 meat processing employees have been impacted by the virus, meaning they either tested positive for the disease or had to go into self-quarantine, according to the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, the largest private-sector union. Twenty workers have died.

At least 22 meat plants have closed within the past two months, reducing pork processing capacity by 25% and beef processing capacity by 10%, according to UFCW. Farmers have animals with nowhere to go as a result, and the situation is so dire that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is setting up a center to help growers with “depopulation and disposal methods” for animals.

Mike Siegel is the progressive candidate running in a central Texas congressional district represented by Michael McCaul one of the GOP clowns who refused to wear a mask on the floor of the House last week. Last week Mike told us that "every day, across Texas and this country, our workers are making a terrible choice: earn a paycheck or protect your health. You can’t do both. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government’s role in protecting worker safety was limited. As one steelworker told me, even when a facility like a chemical plant had a major accident or release of toxic chemicals, OSHA wasn’t likely to show up. If a worker filed an anonymous complaint, OSHA would send a fax to the company and ask for a remediation plan. The company would fax back its remediation plan. Case closed."

Greg Abbott declaring that businesses are open and workers should be careful is far from "case closed." Mike also reminded us that "In response to COVID-19, OSHA has issued Guidelines on Preparing Workplaces, but takes pains to say how they are recommendations only. Here in Texas, the state has not developed its own occupational safety agency, so we are stuck with what the federal government offers. Cities and counties have code enforcement departments, and places like Austin have made efforts to respond to COVID-19 concerns at work places, but there is no agency that is equipped to make sure workers have the PPE they need, or the space necessary to avoid spreading the virus. For the last week, I’ve been working with unions to raise awareness of the lack of workplace safety, at the same time that Texas Governor Greg Abbott publicizes his plans to 're-open' the state. Building on the efforts of Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin and over 50 House Democrats, who filed a 'Reopen America Act of 2020' to ensure testing and PPE before the country attempts to return to normal, I joined with Texas unions, labor councils and regional federations to propose expanded OSHA compliance and investigative capacity to ensure safe workplaces in the COVID era."

Tony Corbo, an official of Food and Water Action told the media that" Trump’s plan to instruct slaughter plants to stay open despite causing major outbreaks of COVID-19 is even worse than his suggestion to use disinfectant to treat sick people. It’s deadly and foolish and will cause catastrophic harm. The consolidated and profit-driven agricultural industry has made our food system weak. It’s crucial the food industry protects workers by closing plants when necessary in order to keep the food system from collapsing entirely. Companies have proven they cannot be trusted to take the necessary measures to continue functioning safely amidst this pandemic. Even Tyson Foods admitted in their full-page ad in the New York Times that they are failing to meet safety standards in every single plant. In most plants, social distancing is impossible and fast line speeds make safety precautions impractical. Furthermore, most workers have not been supplied with proper personal protective equipment to work in these dangerous conditions. Thousands of food workers have tested positive for COVID-19, and at least 17 have died. One hundred of those workers are federal meat inspectors, two of whom have died. Even more workers have been exposed to the virus already, but a lack of testing is hiding the true scope of infection. The federal government should be stepping in to supplement food distribution networks to get our abundant frozen meat supplies to stores and food banks that need them. Instead, they’re currying favor with giant corporations that have continuously put their bottom line above worker workers’ health, food safety, and the vitality of our food supply chain. It’s simple: if unsafe food plants remain open, more food workers will die."

Personally, I'd suggest Americans will be a lot healthier and the environment would be way better, if Americans consumed much less meat and much more fruits, grains, beans and vergatables. Can you imagine someone like Trump (or Biden) ever saying anything like that?

That's half a trillion-- with no strings attached

Can the Trumpist regime force reluctant workers back into dangerous situations? They've told unions that any worker who doesn't get back to work in any industry the government opens up will lose their unemployment benefits. The regime is certainly much kinder to corporate giants and their top executives than they are with workers. Jeff Stein and Peter Whoriskey, reporting for the Washington Post yesterday, wrote that "A Federal Reserve program expected to begin within weeks will provide hundreds of billions in emergency aid to large American corporations without requiring them to save jobs or limit payments to executives and shareholders... Unlike other portions of the relief for American businesses, however, this aid will be exempt from rules passed by Congress requiring recipients to limit dividends, executive compensation and stock buybacks and does not direct the companies to maintain certain employment levels. Critics say the program could allow large companies that take the federal help to reward shareholders and executives without saving any jobs. The program was set up jointly by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin defended the corporate aid program, saying that the lack of restrictions on recipients had been discussed and agreed to by Congress. “This was highly discussed on a bipartisan basis. This was thought through carefully,” he said in an interview with the Washington Post. “What we agreed upon was direct loans would carry the restrictions, and the capital markets transactions would not carry the restrictions.”

Democrats asked for restrictions on how companies can use the money from the central bank’s bond purchases but were rebuffed by the administration during negotiations about the Cares Act, said a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY). The spokesman said Democrats won meaningful concessions from the administration on reporting transparency in the final agreement. (Transparency requirements do not apply to the small-business loans, the biggest business aid program rolled out to date.)

...Bharat Ramamurti, an aide to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) who was appointed to the board overseeing the bailout, said in a statement: “Big corporations have shown time and again that they will put their shareholders and executives ahead of their workers if given the choice. That’s why I’m so concerned that the Treasury and the Fed have chosen to direct hundreds of billions of dollars to big companies with no strings attached.”

Speaking generally and not about this particular bamboozle by the regime, former Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) told the Washington Post that "I don’t know anyone who thinks that this is the future of the party." Flake was driven out of the Senate by Trump so his comments aren't coming as a surprise to anyone. But other Republicans smell the rot and failure and are beginning to distance themselves from the source. In yesterday's NY Times Trip Gabriel noted that when Ohio's Republican governor, Mike DeWine, began social distancing himself from Trump, his popularity rose.

For 40 years, Mike DeWine rose steadily if blandly up the ladder of Ohio politics, finally landing his dream job as governor. He took office last year as a familiar figure in the state, not because of any indelible political identify, but because, at 72, he had been around forever.

But the coronavirus crisis has made Mr. DeWine something that decades in elected offices never did: a household name. A Republican, he took early and bold actions to lock down his state, even as the head of his party, President Trump, dismissed the threat of the pandemic.

Mr. DeWine’s decisiveness-- closing schools before any governor in the country, postponing the state’s March 17 primary election to protect voters-- sent his popularity soaring. The folksy governor, previously best known for an annual ice cream social at his rural home, became something of a cult figure on social media. Ohioans tuned into his five-day-a-week briefings to celebrate “Wine With DeWine,” a ritual whose motto is “It’s 2 o’clock somewhere.”

Now, Mr. DeWine is charting a way out of the shutdown, taking cautious steps while facing pressure from business leaders, conservative activists and some Republican lawmakers who vociferously question the economic costs of a state in quarantine.

Seven weeks into the crisis, Mr. DeWine is being guided by health experts while avoiding partisan fissures over stay-at-home orders that have been encouraged by Mr. Trump, who hopes a rebounding economy will carry him to re-election. The Ohio governor is the rare Republican official who does not automatically fall in step with Mr. Trump, an independence he shares with two other Republican governors, Larry Hogan of Maryland and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, both of whom lead solidly Democratic states where bipartisanship is needed to survive. Unlike them, Mr. DeWine has gone his own way in a red-hued state.

He also split decidedly with Mr. Trump by encouraging a nearly all-mail primary election on Tuesday. While the president has spread the false claim that voting by mail entails “a lot” of fraud, Mr. DeWine pushed universal absentee ballots for voters’ safety. Ohio’s secretary of state on Monday called the effort a success, with nearly 1.5 million mail ballots cast.

...In a poll of Ohio voters released on Monday, 35 percent of Republicans said they were worried that the United States would take too long to loosen restrictions and that the economy would spiral further downward, compared with 14 percent of Democrats.

The poll, by Baldwin Wallace University, also showed overwhelming support for the governor. Eighty-five percent of respondents approved of his handling of the coronavirus, 89 percent said they trusted him as a source of information about the outbreak, and three out of four said he was doing a better job than Mr. Trump.

The poll also measured favorability among politicians. These were the favorable results among Ohio voters:

• DeWine- 75.1%
• Fauci- 59.9%
• Pence- 45.6%
• Trump- 43.1%
• Biden- 42.1%
• Cuomo- 37.6%

Related-- Alex Isenstadt reported in Politico that McConnell is telling Republican senators through the NRSC to stop defending Trump's coronavirus nonsense and just attack China instead. Trump flipped out so badly that his "political adviser Justin Clark told NRSC executive director Kevin McLaughlin that any Republican candidate who followed the memo’s advice shouldn’t expect the active support of the reelection campaign and risked losing the support of Republican voters." The NRSC backed down but Jonathan Swan pointed to another likely rift between Republican senators and Trump: infrastructure. On a conference call with his colleagues yesterday, McConnell "panned the idea of using a coronavirus stimulus bill to fund major infrastructure investment," something Trump sees as another way for him to loot the treasury.

On today's call, McConnell said he won't support infrastructure in a COVID-19 bill. "We need to keep the White House in the box," he told senators, according to two sources familiar with the call... This is not the first time McConnell has privately told his colleagues he's uncomfortable with the White House's attitude towards spending.

One of the sources said that on a call with senators last week, "McConnell was essentially saying that, while the president will be willing to spend any amount of money between now and November, it was going to be up to Senate Republicans to act like Republicans and resist crazy spending."

...McConnell blocked additional money to state and local governments in the last coronavirus bill. And he said it's time to think about the national debt.

McConnell is going to use aid to states and local governments as a bargaining chip to get the Democrats to agree to limiting employer liabilities for dead and injured workers.

How Much "Trump" Is The Right Amount Of "Trump" For Congressional Candidates To Use?

by Nancy Ohanian

Yesterday, in relation to an unrelated post I was discussing with him, L.A. area Congressman Ted Lieu happened to mention that "The American middle class helped to create the greatest economy the world has ever known. However, misguided policies-- mostly driven by Republicans obsessed with tax cuts for the wealthy-- have hollowed out opportunity for Americans to enter the middle class and live out their fair share of the American dream. Hard-working Americans deserve an economy defined by strong wages, good benefits and retirement security-- we have governed this country from the right and from the center, now we need to try an innovative progressive approach." As part of a process of reform, the House Democrats elected Ted DCCC Vice Chair for the West Coast. He's being very proactive with all the candidates who seek his advice and I'm sure they're getting this kind of meta-messaging from him and his staff, meta-messaging that will serve them well if they weave it into their campaigns' approach to the 2018 midterm contest in their districts.

That said, ALG Research noted yesterday that "Trump entered office with a historically low approval rating, one that is made even more notable when taking into account the low rate of unemployment, a booming stock market, high consumer confidence, and the fact that the United States is not currently engaged in a drastically unpopular war. As outrage over the President's response to the violence in Charlottesville this past weekend has become the subject of a vast public outcry, it's important to remember just how unpopular Trump was even before the events of the last two weeks... Three recent polls from CNN, Quinnipiac, and Gallup all found that the President's job approval rating had dropped to record lows of 38%, 33%, and 34% respectively... reflective of a slow and steady decline in Trump's job approval rating, as well as a slow yet steady increase in his disapproval rating."

Most shocking about these recent polls however, is the proportion of people who have very firmly made up their minds and say they disapprove "strongly" of Trump's job performance. In the CNN poll, out of the 56% of respondents who said they disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job as president, 47% said they "strongly" disapprove and only 9% said they "somewhat" disapproved. The Quinnipiac poll showed a similar split amongst respondents. Out of the 61% who said they disapproved of how Trump is handling his job, 55% said they "strongly" disapproved, with just 6% saying they "somewhat" disapproved.

These numbers show that Trump's job approval rating is not a soft number that will be easily influenced by White House attempts to win Americans back over, but rather is indicative of strongly held opinions amongst Americans that are unlikely to change without a significant shift in strategy. While it's not impossible for Trump to win over Americans who currently strongly disapprove of his job performance, it is unlikely, and leaves the White House a very narrow path to attempt to rebuild public perception of Trump's job performance thus far.

Trump's approval ratings amongst Americans who aren't affiliated with a political party or identify as Independents, many of whom are frequently recognized as swing voters, are also declining. In the recent Gallup poll Trump's approval amongst Independents sank to a record low of 29%. The Quinnipiac poll also found job approval amongst Independents was low, with just 34% of Independents approving of Trump's handling of his job so far.

The recent Quinnipiac poll also showed that a half of white Americans without a college degree hold a negative view of Trump's job performance so far. 50% said they disapproved of Trump's handling of his job as President, while 43% said they approved. Largely hailed as one of the groups that propelled Trump to victory, this could present big problems for Trump and his coalition moving forward into the midterms. While job approval and vote share are distinctly different measures, they are also intrinsically linked and a drop to just 43% approval from a group that voted for the President by a margin of 67% to 28% certainly signals that the President's base is not as strong as it once was.

Democrats Have a Path to Retaking the House of Representatives

Trump's job approval also holds important implications as both parties prepare to fight for Congressional majorities in 2018. The chart below from NBC News shows the number of House seats gained or lost in midterm elections side-by-side with September approval ratings from those elections.

With the midterm elections over a year away and Trump's approval under 40% in all of these recent polls, we could be looking at midterm election results comparable to those of 1946, 1978, 1982, and 1994. In these years when Presidential approval was at 45% or lower in September of the midterm election year, the party in power lost an average of 37.5 seats in the House of Representatives in November elections. That would be more than enough for Democrats to take back the House.

Unfortunately, the President's low job approval is not an ace in the hole for Democrats... However, if Democrats are able to capitalize upon Trump's weaknesses on healthcare policy, foreign affairs, immigration policy, and helping the middle class-- not to mention his implosion amongst Independents-- it could certainly lead to them retaking the House in 2018.

Tuesday night, Alabama Republican primary voters rejected Trump's endorsed candidate, incumbent Luther Strange, for the U.S. Senate seat, despite massive amounts of money going into Strange's campaign and only modest amounts spent by his opponents. Strange came in second and there will be a September 26 runoff.

Crackpot extremist Roy Moore took 162,570 votes (38.9%), while Strange, the Trump guy, took 136,910 (32.8%) and another crackpot, Mo Brooks, took 82,363 votes (19.7%). Moore is more of a Trumpian character than Strange but Trump repeatedly endorsed Strange and did all he could do to motivate his supporters in Alabama, where's he's still popular, to vote for him. All he could do wasn't enough. And if he doesn't have coattails in Alabama... what do you think Mimi Walters, Ed Royce, Darrell Issa, Steve Knight and Dana Rohrabacher are thinking in Southern California. John Culberson, Will Hurd, Pete Sessions, Lamar Smith and Kenny Marchant are all sweating up a storm in Texas now. Trump coattails in the northeast-- for GOP incumbents, Bruce Poliquin (ME), Leonard Lance (NJ), Tom MacArthur (NJ), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Chris Smith (NY), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), Lee Zeldin (NY), Peter King (NY), Dan Donovan (NY), John Faso (NY), Elise Stefanik (NY), Claudia Tenney (NY), John Katko (NY), Ryan Costello (PA), Pat Meehan (PA), Brain Fitzpatrick (PA) and Lloyd Smucker (PA) would be turned into absolute anchors by a competent DCCC. And even the grotesquely incompetent one we have might be able to win some Republican seats here and there.



One thing that many Democratic candidates want to get the balance right on has to do with how much they should make their races about Trump. The DCCC strategy is basically to recruit a pack of dreadful corrupt self-funding conservatives-- Blue Dogs, New Dems, "ex"-Republicans, anti-Choice fanatics, corporate whores (the whole Republican wing of the Democratic Party)-- and hope Trump's self-destruction bleeds over into congressional campaigns. Sensible candidates always ignore DCCC strategy and this year the ones who look like they're doing the best so far are the ones who are campaigning on Medicare-For-All, legalized pharmaceutical importation, free state college education, $15/hour minimum wage, a real infrastructure program, expanding Social Security by lifting the cap and other specific policy proposals the conservatives who run the DCCC abhor.

Our friends at HSG Campaigns laid out the pros and cons for using "Trump" and a piñata in House races.

Pros

• According to Rasmussen, strong disapproval for Trump exceeded 50% in July, mostly among Democrats. Using Trump's image can be a good way to motivate the base to come out and vote on Election Day. "Send a message to Trump" is a good message for progressives.
• Attacking Democratic primary opponents who hold any views that align with Trump's can give your primary campaign a shot in the arm and move the needle in your favor.
• In general elections, Republicans who align themselves with too closely Trump will lose independent voters. So, if you have a Trumpian Republican you're facing, you should exploit that in your mailers, ads, and press conferences.

Cons

• Many voters understand that Trump is not a typical Republican. While anti-Trump messages will work well with progressive Democrats and people of color, they are likely to fall short of expectations with other voters, especially if the Republican in the race distances him or herself from the president.
• There is a law of diminishing returns when you try associating a Democratic primary opponent to an unpopular Republican. We have seen it many times in the past. While it can give your campaign a shot in the arm, sustaining those attacks will make them less and less effective because (frankly) voters don't find them very believable.
• Traditional Republican voters like the ones we discussed a few weeks ago (wealthier, more educated, suburban) might not like Trump, but that doesn't mean they're ready to vote for a Democratic congressional candidate. They will see through it if you try to get them to vote Democratic with an anti-Trump message.

We asked some of the Blue America-endorsed candidates how they're trying to get the balance right. Jenny Marshall is running for the very gerrymandered west central North Carolina seat held by GOP crackpot Virginia Foxx. "In my campaign," she told us today, "I am about holding our elected leaders accountable for their words and actions. Whether that is Rep. Foxx or President Trump, they do not get a free pass for their bad behavior. I do try to frame it as a contrast rather than just look at how awful these two are. I speak briefly about their statement and then quickly shift to what I believe in and how do I want to enact changes once elected. It can't all be about them in a sky is falling way. You have to show why you are the best candidate for the job."

Sam Jammal is the progressive Democrat in the race for the northeast Orange County seat occupied by Ryan crony/Trump rubber stamp Ed Royce. He said he can't speak for other districts around the country but almost all the candidates we spoke with expressed a similar perspective to his for their own districts. "I can't speak for every district, but, here in the 39th District, Trump has created a level of activism we have never seen. This will be helpful for mobilizing a grassroots army to defeat Ed Royce. But being anti-Trump is not enough. Voters will not just fire an entrenched incumbent, like Ed Royce, they need a reason to hire the Democrat. This is why I am running. I believe we need bold ideas-- like Medicare for All and 100% clean energy-- and to also get back to the basics and focus on making sure workers get a raise, people can afford a home and student debt doesn't cripple the next generation. My campaign is focused on fighting for the families I grew up with and giving voters a clear choice. Trump gets people to pay attention, but real solutions will win these seats."

Trump's Collapsing Presidency

Señor Trumpanzee's very shady modeling agency, Trump Model Management, is under investigation again. One guy Trumpanzee can't fire is New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman-- but I bet he wishes he could. One of his investigations, coordinated under both the Financial Crimes Bureau and the Organized Crime Task Force, involves the beleaguered modeling agency as part of a possible future Enterprise Corruption indictment.

There is some speculation that Preet Bharara's office was investigating the Trump Organization under federal RICO statutes and that after Trump fired him without cause, Schneiderman took over the investigation with a state-level version of RICO: Enterprise Corruption.

Trump himself-- and his rapidly expanding legal defense team-- are more focused on the Putin-Gate scandal than the "petty" crime that has marked Trump's entire sleazy career. This tweet is just pathetic: his whiny attempt tp guilt congressional Republicans into coming to his aid even more overtly than many of them already have.

"Carried over the line on my back?" The man is delusional. Most Republican incumbents did better-- many much better-- than Trump, who, after all, did lose to Clinton by nearly 3 million votes-- 65,853,516 to 62,984,825. In most constituencies Trump wasn't carrying anyone on his back. He was an anchor. He certainly helped defeat Republican Senate incumbents Mark Kirk (IL) and Kelly Ayotte (NH), each of whom outpolled him, Kirk 2,184,692 to 2,146,015 and Ayotte 353,632 to 345,790. In fact, in New Hampshire, he also dragged incumbent Tea Party congressman Frank Guinta to a career-ending debacle. Nor was Guinta the only Republican who lost his seat because of Trump. The voters in Mark Kirk's old House district in Illinois also threw out Bob Dold while they were defeating Trump and Kirk. Florida voters ousted GOP incumbents John Mica and David Jolly and in Nevada, where Trump lost to Hillary, he dragged down the Republicans' Senate candidate, Joe Heck, and two House candidates, incumbent Cresent Hardy and challenger Danny Tarkanian.

Not even an utterly fact-free imbecile like Trump is likely to claim he carried Utah Senator Mike Lee over the finish like on his back. Lee took 760,241 votes to Trump's very sad 515,231. Trump has been bitching a lot about Kansas Senator Jerry Moran not supporting his proposals or defending him from attack. But if anyone carried anyone on their back, it was Moran, who got 732,376 votes, carrying Trump, who only won 671,018 votes, to a win in Kansas. Trump may grouse that Chuck Grassely's efforts to protect him aren't enough but Grassley is doing way too much already and certainly won way more votes that Trump did in Iowa-- 926,007 to Trump's relatively weak 800,983. Other Republican Senate incumbents who outpolled Trump last year include McCain (AZ), Rubio (FL), Rob Portman (OH), Johnny Isakson (GA), Mike Crapo (ID), Richard Burr (NC) and Ron Johnson (WI).

And in the House, the Republicans who came closest to losing their seats were all dragged down by Trump. A good example was in CA-49, the San Diego/Orange County district where Hillary beat Trump 50.7% to 43.2% dragging Darrell Issa to his worst result ever and nearly costing him his seat. In the end Issa eked out a miserable 155,888 (50.3%) to 154,267 (49.7%) win over newcomer Doug Applegate, even though Issa outspent Applegate $6,275,754 to $2,041,091. Or take TX-07, the Houston district represented by John Culberson. Hillary won 48.5% to 47.1% and Culberson, despite running against a Democrat with virtually no support suffered his worst election result ever and, like Issa, is likely it be defeated in 2018.

Meanwhile, Trump is still tweeted veiled threats to Republicans in Congress growing increasingly sick of him and his childish, vindictive behavior. Is this one a threat? The real repercussions will be to the 20 to 30 million Americans who lose their healthcare if TrumpCare in ever enacted. And if that isn't enough of a repercussion for the self-absorbed, Adderall-fueled Trump, how about the fact that voters have consistently said-- by huge margins-- that they will be much less likely to vote for their own members of Congress if they back TrumpCare?

How Toxic Will Trump Be For GOP Candidates in 2018-- AFTER The Honeymoon Is Over?

Friday afternoon, we mentioned that the RNC met last week in California and that Trump sent them a crackpot video about how he would campaign for their candidates in the 2018 midterms. That caused alarm-- a great deal of alarm. His base still loves him-- they're either profoundly stupid, profoundly racist or profoundly addicted to opioids (or, in many cases) all three-- but among normal Americans, Trump is the most unpopular and disliked president in history. There are virtually no vulnerable members of Congress who would want him in their districts campaigning for them. Congressional incumbents like Barbara Comstock, Carlos Curbelo, Martha McSally, Mimi Walters might be better off if Trump denounced them and campaigned against them! In fact, look how Trump did in these Republican-held districts and remember, he's much more unpopular now:

• FL-27- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen- 38.9%
• CA-21- David Valadao- 39.7%
• FL-26- Carlos Curbelo- 40.6%
• CO-06- Mike Coffman- 41.3%
• MN-03- Erik Paulsen- 41.4%
• VA-10- Barbara Comstock- 42.2%
• CA-39- Ed Royce- 42.9%
• IL-06- Pete Roskam- 43.2%
• CA-49- Darrell Issa- 43.2%
• CA-21- Steve Knight- 43.6%
• CA-45- Mimi Walters- 44.4%
• WA-08- Dave Reichert- 44.7%
• AZ-02- Martha McSally- 44.7%
• NY-24- John Katko- 45.3%
• CA-10- Jeff Denham 45.5%
• KS-03- Kevin Yoder- 46.0%
• CA-48- Dana Rohrabacher- 46.2%
• TX-23- Will Hurd- 46.4%
• TX-32- Pete Sessions- 46.6%
• PA-07- Pat Meehan- 47.0%
• TX-07- John Culberson- 47.1%
• NJ-07- Leonard Lance- 47.5%
• PA-06- Ryan Costello- 47.6%

And even in districts Trump managed to win because of how much people loathed Hillary, his pathetic win numbers-- like 48.2 in NE-02 (Bacon) 48.7% in IA-01 (Blum), 49.7% in MI-11 (Trott), 46.5 in MN-02 (Lewis) and 48.5% in IA-03 (Young)-- are not likely to elicit invitations from embattled incumbents. Yesterday, I spoke with a staffer in Leonard Lance's office, a lifelong Republican true-believer. "If Trump makes his stays at Bedminster [a Trump golf resort in Lance's district where Trump has regularly met with his Mafia cronies] into campaign events for us, we'll lose the seat; period. Independents are the key to reelection here and independents in this part of New Jersey have developed a visceral dislike for him and don't believe a word he says. We're better off if he doesn't even endorse the Congressman or mention there's a race."

Kia Hamadanchy, a young Orange County attorney and former Sherrod Brown staffer is running for the Orange County seat Mimi Walters pretends to represent. Kia has his fingers crossed that Trump will show up in Irvine, Tustin, Lake Forest or Mission Viejo. "I'd love nothing more than to see Donald Trump out here in Orange County campaigning for Mimi Walters, one of his favorite members of Congress. She already put her loyalty to Donald Trump above the people of her district by voting for his disastrous healthcare plan. I can only hope he repays her loyalty by showing up time and time again for her between now and next November. That is of course in the unlikely event that Mimi Walters comes out of hiding and happens to do a public event ever again."

Katie Hill, the progressive candidate up in CA-25, is as eager to see Trump in Santa Clarita, Lancaster or Palmdale as Kia is to see him in Orange County. "Knight and the Republicans should be terrified of how angry and mobilized people are here in the 25th. Trump's and the Republicans' policies, quite simply, will hurt our people here and they know it. Knight's yes vote on the AHCA in particular was a betrayal of the promises he made to all of us, and that sense of betrayal is going to stick around. I truly hope they get scared enough to bring Trump here to campaign on behalf of Knight and against me. I know that will only seal Knight's fate and I am ready to take them both on."

And Randy Bryce is the independent-minded iron worker who's standing up to the DCCC to, in all likelihood, take on Paul Ryan in his southeast Wisconsin district. He can't wait for Ryan-- let alone Trump-- to show up on the campaign hustings in Kenosha, Janesville, Racine, Burlington, Elkhorn... or even in Muskego or somewhere else in beet red Waukesha County. "I would absolutely love to see Donald Trump come to Wisconsin in order to campaign on behalf of Paul Ryan. Not only would it mean that Ryan finally met with the voters of the 1st CD but it would be a fantastic opportunity for the thousands who have buyers' remorse to let it be known that 2018 will bring some badly needed changes."

Guess who

Over the weekend, Politico's Alex Isenstadt reported on the RNC meeting and how the top level Republican Party officials there have been grappling with a profoundly unstable White House. Trump sent a 5-minute video address in which he said "Your commitment will help us keep the House in 2018 and gain more seats in the Senate. I’ll be going around to different states, I’ll be working hard for the people running for Congress and the people running for the Senate. We can gain a lot of seats, especially if it all keeps going like it's going now." To which there were both groans and nervous laughs. "With the White House in meltdown mode," Isenstadt wrote, "top Republican Party officials and operatives gathered at a posh oceanside resort here and contemplated a 2018 midterm election that will test them in unimaginable ways. At the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting, strategists expressed alarm about a pair of upcoming special House elections and what they might portend for the battle for the lower chamber next year. One high-profile potential candidate outlined how he would distinguish himself from the embattled president."

“I don’t think there is anything to compare it to. You have a non-politician who’s the president, so he doesn’t do things in a political way and that completely drives insiders of both parties bonkers because they don’t understand it,” said Randy Evans, a Republican National Committeeman from Georgia who was a top adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. “Right now, we’re just in a completely different and foreign political environment where pollsters and pundits and focus groups don’t matter.”

“Anybody that tells you they have a feel for what’s going to happen next year is just delusional,” he added.

The House elections took center stage at the meeting, since the Senate is seen as much less likely to change hands.

In one presentation on the GOP's challenges ahead, the National Republican Congressional Committee’s executive director, John Rogers, pointed out that far more vulnerable Republican incumbents represent districts that Hillary Clinton won than endangered Democratic incumbents in districts that Trump carried. Rogers reminded attendees that midterm elections are historically unkind to the party in the White House.

And he offered a surprisingly unvarnished forecast of looming special elections that the party has been favored to win. While the race for a Georgia House seat is a tossup, he said, one in Montana later this month is closer than public polling indicated... One of the attendees at that session was Jeff Essmann, who as Montana's Republican Party chairman is working to salvage the congressional seat. Republicans, Essmann said, face as volatile an environment as he could remember in his four decades in politics.

...[A]s party officials begin preparing for 2018, tensions are flaring. On Wednesday, as the besieged administration struggled to answer questions about the Comey dismissal, the NRCC released a fundraising email that raised the prospect of a Democratic-led Trump impeachment.

Several strategists close to the RNC and the White House, neither of which got a heads-up before the message was sent, said they were rankled by the move. The House GOP campaign arm and the administration have already been at odds over the early planning for 2018.

As word of the email raced through the hotel, NRCC officials, who had been watching NBA playoff games and holding meetings in a downstairs bar, scrambled to control the damage.

With the Comey firing and Russia investigation dominating the headlines, there were also moments of discomfort. During a welcome reception Wednesday, a national committeeman took the stage and, perhaps jokingly, referred to those assembled as “comrades," drawing grimaces.

At times, the RNC appeared to take pains to obscure any dissent about Trump. On Thursday, RNC members gathered for a closed-door breakfast meeting to discuss issues confronting the committee. Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel, fearing leaks, implored attendees to turn off their phones and not record the proceedings. She also asked RNC and hotel staffers to leave the room.

McDaniel warned the group that reporters were covering the event and trying to eavesdrop in the hopes of writing negative stories.

McDaniel's aides insisted the move was typical. Yet some members felt she was going too far to project a united front.

For all of Trump’s difficulties, however, GOP leaders said his base of support-- among the conservative grassroots and party hierarchy-- was largely intact. At least for now.

“I think he’s still in a honeymoon period,” said Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan GOP chairman, “and he’s getting a pass on a lot of things that in another six months, eight months might become a bigger issue.”

Did Trump Have Any Coattails In Senate Races?

There was a lot of anger among Trump fans that so many of the GOP incumbents either opposed Trump directly-- the way Mark Kirk (R-IL) did-- or refused to overtly, publicly and enthusiastically back him-- think Pat Toomey waiting until 6pm on election day. This weekend, as we read the unlikely story, given Trump's well-known penchant for revenge, about how the transition team is considering defeated New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte for the Secretary of Defense job, we have to remember that shoe refused to endorse him. We his partisans in Belknap and Coos counties-- where he performed best, pissed off enough at Ayotte to cost her the election? The answer is no.

First of all Ayotte did better statewide than the unsuccessful Trump and just about the same vote as the successful Republican gubernatorial candidate, Chris Sununu.

• Sununu- 353,572 (49.0%)
• Ayotte- 353,525 (47.9%)
• Trump- 345,598 (47.3%)

However, in the two counties where Trump did best, he did outperform her, although very slightly-- maybe a Klavern's worth. In Belknap, where Trump took 19,315 votes (56.0%), Ayotte won 18,710 (53.8%). Same story in Coos County, where Trump won 7,951 votes (52.1%) and Ayotte got 7,537 votes (48.7%).

Illinois and Nevada, two states that Trump lost and where the GOP Senate candidates went down the drain with him, were also the two states were the Republican candidates were most explicit in saying that would not vote for Trump. In Illinois Trump did really badly-- 2,118,179 votes (39.4%). Mark Kirk didn't do well either-- but noticeably better than Trump-- 2,150,099 (40.2%). Trump had several pockets of strength though. His half dozen best-performing counties, Trump Country, were all tiny and rural:

• Wayne- 6,963 (84.3%
• Edwards- 2,777 (83.8%)
• Clay- 5,009 (79.8%)
• Pope- 1,678 (78.7%)
• Effingham- 13,613 (78.1%)
• Jasper- 3,973 (77.8%)

Trumpists in these far right bastions were significantly less enthusiastic about Kirk:

• Wayne- 5,612 (70.7%)
• Edwards- 2,321 (68.5%)
• Clay- 3,896 (64.0%)
• Pope- 1,279 (61.9%)
• Effingham- 12,497 (72.5%)
• Jasper- 3,310 (66.9%)

Had he not lost so many Trumpists would he have beaten Duckworth? Nope. In the bigger urban and suburban counties, he did far better than Trump, largely because he distanced himself from the unpopular fascist. In the biggest county in the state, Cook, Kirk won 512,164 votes (25.2%), much better than Trump's 440,213 (21.4%). It was pretty much the same in the next 5 biggest counties in the state, deep red McHenry County being the glaring exception.

• DuPage- Kirk: 190,201 (45.7%), Trump: 164,355 (39.8%)
• Lake- Kirk: 133,592 (45.2%), Trump: 108,608 (37.0%)
• Will- Kirk: 124,101 (42.8%), Trump: 129,726 (44.6%)
• Kane- Kirk: 87,153 (45.2%), Trump: 82.087 (42.4%)
• McHenry- Kirk: 57.923 (41.4%), Trump: 71,117 (52.6%)

Kirk's gamble to eschew Trump and his most rabid, racist fans paid off... just not enough. In Nevada the story was slightly different. Trump took 511,319 votes statewide (45.5%) and the anti-Trump (but not anti-Trump enough?) wishy-washy Heck took 494,427 votes (44.7%).

Trump won all the sparsely populated, rural counties and lost the two biggies, Clark (Vegas) and Washoe (Reno) to Clinton. Trump's two biggest counties were Eureka-- 723 (84.7%)-- Lincoln-- 1,671 (78.4%)-- and Esmeralda-- 329 (77.8%). Who cares when he lost Clark by double digits, 401,068 (52.4%) to 319,571 (41.8%). Catherine Cortez Masto didn't even win Washoe County-- just Clark. Compare Heck and Trump in the 2 biggest counties and in Trump's 3 best-performers, all tiny:

• Clark- Heck: 303,316 (40.4%), Trump: 319,571 (41.8%)
• Washoe- Heck: 97,226 (46.9%), Trump: 94,529 (45.2%)
• Eureka- Heck: 692 (81.5%), Trump: 723 (84.7%)
• Lincoln- Heck: 1,609 (75.9%), Trump: 1,671 (78.4%)
• Esmeralda- Heck: 312 (74.3%), Trump: 329 (77.8%)

Heck's win in Washoe, where's he's from, was significant but Trump voters seemed to have abandoned him consistently enough, not to make a difference in the outcome, but enough to make him question his ever-shifting strategy towards Trump.

Alaska had a unique situation,. The establishment incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, who was distinctly unenthusiastic about Trump, was more concerned with the Trumpist Libertarian candidate, far right-wing lunatic Joe Miller, than she was with a pathetically divided Democratic Party. Trump wasn't especially popular in a state where Romney beat Obama 136,848 (55%) to 102,138 (41%). Trump's victory over Clinton was 130,415 (52.9%) to 93,007 (37.7%). A less disliked Democrat would have come a lot closer to beating him and Bernie probably could have. The Senate race had the two Republicans with over 180,000 votes between them, around 50,000 more than Trump! Murkowski took 111,382 votes (44.3%) and Miller, the full-on Trumpist crackpot, took 74,245 (29.5%).

In Arizona, the antipathy between Trump and McCain was out in the open. McCain did better than Trump-- 1,085,285 (53.4%) to Trump's 1,017,166 (49.5%) In Colorado, the Republicans had nominated a fringe rightist Darryl Glenn it run against an unpopular Democratic incumbent, Michael Bennet. Bennet won but with a narrower margin than expected: 1,242,335 (49.1%) to 1,148,008 (45.4%), beating Trump's 1,136,354 (44.4%) statewide. Bennet also beat Clinton.

Down the road in Utah, Trump was the unloved victor with far fewer votes than the anti-Trump Governor or Senator. Trump only won 397,005 votes (46.6%). Trump-hater Senator Mike Lee took 571,781 votes (68.1%) and Trump-hater Gary Herbert won 564,563 votes (66.9%). For all the Sturm und Drang, Trump was a non-factor in Utah. Clinton beat him in Salt Lake County, 126,702 (44.9%) to 91,373 (32.4%). Again, his best-performing counties were all rural and numerically inconsequential. Compare his performance to Mike Lee's in Trump's 3 best counties:

• Piute- Trump: 537 (87.0%), Lee: 549 (91.2%)
• Emery- Trump: 3,402 (79.8%), Lee: 3.630 (86.0%)
• Duchesne- Trump: 5,505 (79.4%), Lee: 6,044 (87.8%)

I'll note in passing that the most outspoken Trump Senate candidate anywhere former KKK Grand Dragon or Wizard, David Duke, came in 7th in Louisiana, with just 58,581 votes. Trump, who won the state with 1,178,004 votes (58.1%), didn't do him much good. There were no bright spots for Duke anywhere in the state. Trump's half dozen best-performing parishes were La Salle (88.8%), Cameron (88.2%), Livingston (84.6%), Grant (84.0%), West Carroll (83.4%) Caldwell (81.5%) and the only ones of them where Duke climbed above his miserable statewide average were La Salle (8.1%) and Caldwell (7.9%). Duke's best-performing parish, the racist hellhole Avoyelles (median household income-- $23,851) was kind of average for Trump-- 11,163 votes (67.3%)-- while Duke came in 5th with 1,354 (8.9%). Trump wasn't much of a factor in the state.

But he sure was in Florida. Rubio-- who had, in Patrick Murphy, the weakest Democratic opponent of any major state-- very publicly held his nose and endorsed Trump, who he promised to fight when he steps out of line. Rubio out-performed Trump statewide-- 4,822,182 (52.0%) to 4,605,515 (49.1%). His native Miami-Dade was an important consideration for Rubio, of course. Trump fans in the really backwards little rural districts where Trump had his biggest wins were relatively unethusiastic about Rubio, but the voters in the big counties where are the voters are were more interested in electing Rubio than Trump. First the half dozen most Florida counties with the most voters:

•Miami-Dade- Trump: 333,666 (34.1%), Rubio: 419,623 (43.3%)
• Broward- Trump: 258,521 (31.4%), Rubio: 275,930 (34.1%)
• Palm Beach- Trump: 270,762 (41.2%), Rubio: 286,027 (44.2%)
• Hillsborough- Trump: 265,928 (44.7%), Rubio: 282,749 (48.1%)
• Orange- Trump: 195,091 (35.7%), Rubio: 224,710 (41.7%)
• Pinellas- Trump: 238,746 (48.6%), Rubio: 236,170 (48.8%)

In these 6 most crucial counties in the state, Rubio won 162,525 more votes than Trump. He beat Trump in every one of them except Pinellas and Rubio actually had a bigger portion of the vote in his contest there than Trump did. In the 6 most blue counties Rubio netted 1,725,239 votes, over 162,000 more than Trump's 1,562,714. It's the main reason Rubio did so much better than Trump statewide despite some Trump fanatics refusing to vote for Rubio. And these are the 6 most Trumpoid counties:

• Holmes- Trump: 7,476 (87.9%), Rubio: 7,032 (83.7%)
• Lafayette- Trump: 2,795 (82.8%), Rubio: 2,559 (76.5%)
• Baker- Trump: 10,294 (81.5%), Rubio: 9,901 (79.5%)
• Dixie- Trump: 5,822 (80.8%), Rubio: 5,040 (72.2%)
• Union- Trump: 4,567 (80.2%), Rubio: 4,312 (77.4%)
• Gilchrist- Trump: 6,740 (80.1%), Rubio: 6,301 (75.7%)

So in the 6 most redneck, backward counties in the state, 2,549 Trump fanatics skipped voting for Rubio. It sure didn't make any difference as Rubio crushed Murphy by over 700,000 votes, a lot more convincingly than Trump bested Clinton.

Ohio and Pennsylvania are two states were the GOP incumbents did't endorse Trump. Rob Portman (OH) said he wouldn't vote for him and Toomey played coy. Trump fans had no discernible impact. In fact, in Ohio, Portman out-polled Trump 3,048,467 to 2,771,984-- a 276,483 margin! In Pennsylvania, Toomey had a slightly larger portion of the vote in his race (48.9%) than Trump did in his (48.8%), although statewide Trump had 2,912,941 votes to Toomey's 2,893,833-- a minute margin of 19,108 Trump voters who didn't cast ballots for Toomey.

In Missouri, North Carolina and Wisconsin, the Republican incumbents all backed Trump. With the possible exception of Blunt (MO), he didn't do any of them much good though. Trump kicked ass in Missouri-- 1,585,753 votes (57.1%) while Blunt scraped by with just 1,370,240 votes (49.4%), so Trump might have been helpful. But in North Carolina, Burr got more votes than Trump-- 2,371,192 (51.1%) to 2,339,603 (50.5%). And it was the same thing in Wisconsin, where Ron Johnson got 1,479,262 votes (50.2%) and Trump barely won with 1,409,467 votes (47.9%).

As for Republican incumbents who lost their seats in the House, in Florida John Mica (FL) had endorsed Trump, while David Jolly and Carlos Curbelo had opposed him. Frank Guinta was a Trump supporter and he was defeated badly. Robert Dold (IL) and Cresent Hardy (NV) had opposed Trump, while Scott Garrett (NJ) played coy. Several Republican incumbents in tight races who either opposed Trump or refused to endorse him won, including Barbara Comstock (VA), William Hurd (TX), John Katko (NY), Erik Paulsen (MN), Bruce Poliquin (ME), David Blum (IA), Mike Bost (IL), Mike Coffman (CO), Scott Tipton (CO), Steve Knight (CA) and Dave Valadao (CA). Darrell Issa (CA), a big Trump supporter, is in a race that is still too close to call. Backing or opposing Trump doesn't seem to have been decisive in any races.

How Strong Will Hillary's Coattails Be?

Another way to ask that question might be something like, "Will Trump's Negative Coattails Sink The GOP 2 Weeks From Today?" In a report Sunday for the NY Times, Alexander Burns and Amy Chozick emphasized that Hillary was in Charlotte that day urging black voters to "punish Republican officeholders for supporting Trump... going beyond seeking simply a victory over Mr. Trump, asking voters to strengthen her hand in Congress and repudiate not just Mr. Trump but also Republicans who have accommodated or endorsed him." She asked her supporters to replace Richard Burr with Deborah Ross and the day before she was in Pennsylvania asking voters to defeat Pat Toomey and elect Katie McGinty. A few weeks earlier she was in Haverford, PA with progressive congressional candidate-- and old friend-- Mary Ellen Balchunis helping her in a campaign against garden variety Republican Pat Meehan, despite Pelosi's and the DCCC's attempt to sabotage Balchunis' campaign after she eviscerated their Wall Street-friendly conservaDem in the primary 74-26%, humiliating Steve Israel, Ben Ray Lujan and Pelosi.

In Charlotte she excoriated Burr for being too cowardly to stand up to Trump and Trumpism. "Unlike her opponent, Deborah has never been afraid to stand up to Donald Trump. She knows that people of courage and principles need to come together to reject this dangerous and divisive agenda."

It is a sign of the extraordinarily lopsided nature of the presidential race that, even in a Republican-controlled state like North Carolina, Mrs. Clinton is in a position to exhort voters to hand control of the Senate to Democrats. Though she is still not broadly popular, Mrs. Clinton has cast her candidacy-- and now, perhaps, her party-- as a safe harbor for voters across the political mainstream who find Mr. Trump intolerable.

...For Republicans, blunting Mrs. Clinton’s ability to carry other Democrats into office has become the overriding imperative in the final weeks of the 2016 race. With Mr. Trump so diminished as a competitor for Mrs. Clinton, Republicans say they will now ask voters in newly explicit terms to elect a divided government rather than giving Mrs. Clinton unchecked power.

...In addition to trailing by a wide margin in national polls, Mr. Trump has fallen well behind Mrs. Clinton in states that are likely to determine control of the Senate, including North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Hampshire, and also in suburban areas around the country that are critical to the Republicans’ House majority.

You may be reading that Texas is now a toss-up state, but that doesn't mean Clinton has a real chance to run the state. She's ahead in South Texas but Trump is still way ahead in west Texas and beating her comfortably in North Texas and East Texas. Where Trump is failing is in central Texas. He's weaker than he should be in the Republican suburbs that normally give the GOP huge statewide majorities and in the district where that can actually turn a House race blue-- TX-21, which includes suburbs south of Austin (Travis County) and north of San Antonio (Bexar County)-- the DCCC is completely unprepared. Fortunately, the stung and well-organized grassroots campaign Tom Wakely has mounted is paying off-- for Hillary and for himself. The DCCC-- visionless as usual-- could never imagine defeating powerful reactionary Lamar Smith, the Science Committee Chairman who denigrates Science and who worships at the alter of Donald Trump. Smith was the first congressional committee chairman to endorse Trump and the first member of Congress to contribute money to Trump. Although in recent days he's tried hemming and hawing when confronted by voters about why he's still backing Trump-- claiming he's "not getting involved in presidential politics"-- Smith is widely seen in TX-21 as a Trump surrogate and it's looking more and more likely that-- even with a single return call from the clueless DCCC-- Wakely (a Berniecrat who defeated a more conservative Democrat in the primary) can, with Hillary's help and Trump's weight around Smith's neck, defeat a key GOP chairman... more than the DCCC is even trying anywhere in the entire country. (You can help Wakley's campaign, as well as Balchunis'-- by tapping on the thermometer on the right.)

Bexar County, Sunday afternoon

A few minutes ago, very accurate polling came out from Democracy Corps, showing Hillary not just winning, but winning big across the country in the suburbs-- and that includes the big suburban areas the GOP has counted on near New York, San Antonio/Austin, San Diego and Las Vegas. As you know, that;s exactly where Blue America is working to bring it home for progressives the DCCC has shown little-to-no interest in. The chart below shows Hillary's overall numbers. Even better, among suburanites, she's up over Trump 54-36%. That's going to be enough to bring home wins-- if they can get their messages out-- for DuWayne Gregory, Tom Wakely, Doug Applegate and Ruben Kihuen, ending the disgraceful careers of, respectively, Peter King, Lamar Smith, Darrell Issa and Cresent Hardy. How would you like to see that November 8th?

John Pitney wrote an interesting column for USA Today, also Sunday, with some bearing on this-- basically about how the GOP contention that they'd be able to "control" or even "check" Trump, were he to win is just fantasy. And that's a danger most Americans probably don't want to gamble with.

Although an unusual number of Republican lawmakers have come out against him, most have not. Several who called on him to drop out of the race have since said that they will vote for him anyway. Why are so many siding with a candidate who is so unfit? High on the list of probable motives is fear of a challenge in a future GOP primary. In recent years, some high-profile Republicans have either lost to a hard-line conservative (for instance, former House majority leader Eric Cantor of Virginia) or endured an unexpectedly tough battle (Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi). Trump supporters are vocal and zealous, so it is not hard to picture them working to oust Republicans disloyal to their man.

If GOP lawmakers are cowering before candidate Trump, how could they stand up to President Trump? In addition to his wealth and political base, he would wield the vast power of the executive branch. There is little doubt that he'd use it to punish those who displease him. After House Speaker Paul Ryan said he'd no longer defend his bad behavior, Trump hinted at a leadership purge, saying, “I would think that Ryan wouldn't be there.”

...The feebleness of congressional oversight has been problem even under a more-or-less normal person such as Barack Obama. It would be a disaster under a fanatically secretive person such as Trump. He won’t release his tax returns, and he makes his campaign aides sign non-disclosure agreements. The mind boggles at the information that his administration would withhold from Congress and the American people.

Congress has always been at a disadvantage in checking the president’s power over foreign policy and national security. On hundreds of occasions, presidents have used military force overseas without congressional approval. In 1973, Congress tried to curb such activities by passing the War Powers Act. Numerous military actions over the past 43 years suggest that this measure is not effective.

The law requires the president to seek congressional authorization within 60 days of starting military action. This requirement does not limit the president’s power to launch a nuclear attack-- a process that would take less than an hour. Since the bombing of Hiroshima, a dozen chief executives have held this power, with no real external check at all. Each of these 12 presidents made mistakes, and some of them did very bad things, but none was reckless enough to start a nuclear war. That is why we are alive today.

Trump probably does not hope for Armageddon, and it seems unlikely that he would strike at a friendly nation. But it is all too plausible that his ignorance and rashness could start a crisis that escalates into a nuclear exchange. No one should vote for him in the hope that Congress could stay his hand-- because it can’t.

UPDATE: Just In:

We just got this one minute clip from our driver in Suffolk County-- literally, just now. And, of course, I had to share it. Play it for your friends, especially your friends on Long Island! Please. We can do this-- even without the DCCC.