Are There Any Districts With Democratic Incumbents Where Trump Will Have Coattails?

There are 22 congressional districts that Trump won in 2016 that turned around and elected a non-incumbent Democrat two years later. None of the 7 California freshmen are included:

• CA-10- Josh Harder (F)-- Hillary beat Trump 48.5% to 45.5%
• CA-21- TJ Cox (F)-- Hillary beat Trump 55.2% to 39.7%
• CA-25- Katie Hill (F)-- Hillary beat Trump 50.3% to 43.6% [see below]
• CA-39- Gil Cisneros (F)-- Hillary beat Trump 51.5% to 42.9%
• CA-45- Katie Porter (F)-- Hillary beat Trump 49.8% to 44.4%
• CA-48- Harley Rouda (F)-- Hillary beat Trump 47.9% to 46.2%
• CA-49- Mike Levin (B)-- Hillary beat Trump 50.7% to 43.2%

Unfortunately most of the Democratic candidates were picked by the DCCC and are weak, flawed and are open to defeat in a non-wave cycle. Each candidate's ProgressivePunch score follows their name. (Katie Porter, who beat the terrible DCCC preferred candidate, is an exception and has been a much better member of Congress than the others.) My guess is that, with the exception of scandal-rocked Katie Hill, they will all be returned to Congress in 2020, largely because of Trump's presence at the top of the ticket. 2022 could proven deadly for the weakest of them, especially Cisneros, Rouda and Harder. The only 2020 rematch with a former incumbent-- at least scheduled so far-- is between Cox and David Valadao.

The bigger problem for Democrats, of course, are the 22 seats in districts Trump won. Most of the new Democratic incumbents are weak and uninspiring. Chosen by the DCCC to appeal to Republicans, few of them can get much positive enthusiasm from the Democratic base and, of course, they don't actually appeal to Republicans, just to imaginary centrists who don't exist in the real world. Most of them are likely to be safe next year with Trump leading the Republican change, even though this were Trump 2016 districts and anti-Trump 2018 districts,

• GA-06- Lucy McBath (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.3% to 46.8%
• IA-01- Abby Finkenauer (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.7% to 45.2%
• IA-03- Cindy Axne (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.5% to 45.0%
• IL-14- Lauren Underwood (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.7% to 44.8%
• ME-02- Jared Golden (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 51.4% to 41.1%
• MI-08- Elissa Slotkin (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 50.6% to 43.9%
• MI-11- Haley Stevens (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 49.7% to 45.3%
• MN-02- Angie Craig (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 46.5% to 45.3%
• NH-01- Chris Pappas (B)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.2% to 46.6%
• NJ-02- Jeff Van Drew (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 50.6% to 46.0%
• NJ-03- Andy Kim (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 51.4% to 45.2%
• NJ-11- Mikie Sherrill (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.8% to 47.9%
• NM-02- Xochitl Torres Small (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 50.1% to 39.9%
• NV-03- Susie Lee (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 47.5% to 46.5%
• NY-11- Max Rose (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 53.6% to 43.8%
• NY-19- Antonio Delgado (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 50.8% to 44.0%
• NY-22- Anthony Brindisi (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 54.8% to 39.3%
• OK-05- Kendra Horn (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 53.2% to 39.8%
• SC-01- Joe Cunningham (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 53.5% to 40.4%
• UT-04- Ben McAdams (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 39.1% to 32.4%
• VA-02- Elaine Luria (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 48.8% to 45.4%
• VA-07- Abigail Spanberger (F)-- Trump beat Hillary 50.5% to 44.0%

Writing for Politico Sunday, Sarah Ferris and Ally Mutnick note that ousted Republicans are plotting rematches as impeachment revs up and that former GOP lawmakers think having Trump on the ballot is their ticket back to the House, particularly during the polarizing impeachment debate." Keep in mind, that although nationally impeachment numbers are high and growing, in some districts won by Trump in 2016, the pro-impeachment numbers are lower. Ferris and Mutnick start with NY-22, where an especially bad far right extremist, Claudia Tenney, lost her seat to a really bad conservative Democrat, Blue Dog piece of crap Anthony Brindisi. He beat her last year 127,715 (50.9%) to 123,242 (49.1%). Brindisi won in the two biggest counties-- Oneida and Broome, where voters are looking for a real Democrat, not a Republican-lite Democrat. Brindisi is about as far right as you can go without being an actual Republican. He has the worst voting record of any Democrat in the House, tied with fellow Blue Dogs Joe Cunningham and Jeff Van Drew at 20.00%, which is a worse score than Republican John Katko (in the district next door), in fact worse than 3 Republicans and former Republican, now Independent Justin Amash (32.86).

[W]ith Trump back on the ballot in 2020, Tenney and her supporters see a chance to make her comeback.

“I think it’s going to be a good year,” Tenney said in an interview. “In a presidential year, I think we’ll be able to get some of those gains back.”

And she’s not the only one. A series of ex-Republican lawmakers who lost narrowly in Trump strongholds in 2018 are plotting rematches next year with dreams of riding on the president’s coattails.

Particularly amid an impeachment debate that has polarized the country, the former lawmakers think a juiced-up Trump turnout will lift them past their Democratic opponents and potentially help Republicans win back the House.

Former GOP Rep. David Young is running against freshman Democrat Cindy Axne in a district that includes Des Moines, Iowa-- a repeat of the tight 2018 race. Former GOP Rep. Karen Handel is seeking a rematch against Rep. Lucy McBath, a Democrat representing suburban Atlanta.

Another former Republican congressman, Rod Blum, could be eyeing a challenge to freshman Democratic Rep. Abby Finkenauer in northeast Iowa; he protested outside Finkenauer’s office this month at a Trump campaign-sponsored event to condemn impeachment. And former Republican Rep. Mike Bishop has yet to publicly rule out a run against Democrat Elissa Slotkin in Michigan.

“It was a tough year, just not a great environment for Republicans,” Tenney said of 2018. “I think the environment now is different.”

But Tenney and other the congressional alumni may not be able to count on Trump. His approval ratings are near historic lows for presidents heading into a second term, and freshman Democrats have worked hard to win over independents and moderate Republicans.

Public support is also growing for impeachment, with 45 percent of independents now backing it, compared to 32 opposed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll this week.

Still, Trump holds a grip over the Republican base that seems unshakable, even amid the ongoing investigation into alleged efforts by the president to withhold military aid unless Ukraine publicly investigated his political rivals.

Trump’s most ardent supporters have already begun organizing in Brindisi’s district, more than a year out from the next election. Pro-Trump groups staged protests outside the freshman Democrat’s office and at some of his public events-- including a town hall here in October-- to rally local support in New York’s 22nd Congressional District.

Many of those who have picketed, including Mount Vernon, N.Y. resident Gilda Ward, have focused squarely on Democrats’ impeachment push. And it doesn’t matter to them that Brindisi, one of the most vulnerable freshmen, remains one of seven holdouts in his caucus who oppose the impeachment inquiry.

If he did come out in favor, Ward predicts, “It would be a death knell.”

“I am totally opposed to any kind of impeachment,” she said in an interview after attending a Brindisi town hall. “It really bothers me, and it bothers many of us who voted for Trump.”

Tenney-- an enthusiastic Trump supporter who appeared alongside the president and his family at campaign events in 2018-- plans to once again embrace the president. The former congresswoman said that since announcing her campaign in late September, she’s gotten calls from Republican friends who say Trump is happy she’s running again.

Brindisi’s campaign is eager to zero in on his House opponent and avoid the presidential politics.

“This district has long turned the page on Claudia Tenney, who delivered for late night TV more than she ever did our district,” said Luke Jackson, a Brindisi campaign spokesperson.

Republicans are betting that if Trump remains popular with the GOP base, he could significantly ramp up turnout-- clawing back seats that were lost in the 2018 wipeout.

That includes the district where Tenney and Brindisi will battle it out next year. Trump won nearly 160,000 votes in the district in 2016. Turnout plummeted two years later when Tenney got less than 124,000 votes.

GOP campaign operatives are looking at the same math for Trump-backed districts across the country that are now held by Democrats.

Young said in an interview he is working to find Trump voters who stayed home in 2018 through a “data deep dive” as he plans his rematch against Axne. He added that he senses an energy from voters in his Des Moines-based district that are frustrated by Democrats’ “obsession with trying to remove the president.”

Trump won nearly 193,000 votes in Iowa's 3rd District in 2016. Young won just under 168,000 when he lost to Axne by 2 points two years later. Activists on both sides are motivated, Young said, but he argued Democrats neared their high-water mark in 2018. Axne came close to matching Hillary Clinton's 2016 vote total but Young won far fewer votes than Trump.

“In November 2018, the Democrats had high voter turnout, almost presidential levels,” Young said. “I think to some extent they may have peaked or are getting close to peaking, but Republicans have so much more room to grow.”

In the midterms, dozens of Democratic candidates outperformed Clinton in their districts. But it’s not clear if they achieved those margins because Trump voters stayed home. Those candidates likely owe their victories in part to two other factors: their ability to persuade Trump voters to back a Democrat for Congress as well as their skill at turning out Democratic voters who typically sit out the midterms.

Rob Simms, a top strategist for Handel, who is seeking a rematch with McBath in suburban Atlanta, blames her loss on high Democratic turnout caused by Democrat Stacey Abram's narrow loss for governor.

“The Democrats, really the Abrams campaign, did a tremendous job at bringing out voters who would not typically vote in an off year elections,” said Simms, a former executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Georgia will be more of a battleground in 2020, he said, and Republicans will be ready.

But particularly in suburban districts with highly-educated voters like Georgia's 6th, the momentum is moving away from the GOP and there may be a large chunk of persuadable voters up for grabs. Mitt Romney won the seat by 24 points in 2012 but Trump carried it by 1 point.

Fundraising appears to be an early advantage for McBath, too. The Georgia Democrat outraised Handel nearly 2 to 1 in the last quarter, and has a fundraising war chest of $1.3 million, compared to Handel’s roughly $630,000. Handel also has to clear a GOP primary before she can challenge McBath again.

Meanwhile, few ousted GOP lawmakers seem eager to try again in districts that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016. (Former California Republican David Valadao is a rare exception, as he tries to reclaim his Central Valley-based district that Trump lost by 15 points.)

Two Republicans who once represented suburban districts are running again in different, more GOP-friendly spots, an indication that they still view the climate as unfavorable in their old seats.

Republican Pete Sessions who lost a Dallas-area district is now running 100 miles south in Waco. And Darrell Issa, who retired in 2018 from a Clinton-won seat, is running in a neighboring San Diego district held by embattled GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter.

Still, Republican strategists see a path back to the House majority through the 31 Democratic-held seats that Trump won in 2016.

“The dynamics in ’20 are going to be much different,” Simms said of GOP chances in suburban Georgia. “We have an incumbent president. We have an incumbent senator who’s going to be on top of the ticket. Their campaigns are already organized and functioning and working in the state today.”

Tenney is not intelligent and made a big mistake calling Brindisi a leftist; she's doing the same thing again

I spoke with an old friend who's active in the Broome County Democratic Party, which was Brindisi's best county in 2018 and performed at a solid D+13 level for him. The county voted to reelect Kirsten Gillibrand as well, but turned against Andrew Cuomo, who lost to a little known Republican candidate, Mark Molinaro. Molinaro only scored 36.2% statewide but managed to beat Cuomo 50.7% to 43.6% in Broome. My friend pointed to Cuomo-hatred as a place where Brindisi is heading. "People here were eager to defeat Trump and Tenney last year. No one I know cared who the Democrat was. Brindisi represented an Assembly district far from here and few people knew how conservative he was; Tenney, of course, tried to paint him as a socialist. Now people are disappointed in Brindisi's conservatism and his lack of political courage. He may win next year because Democrats will be out in force to vote against Trump. But when Trump isn't on the ticket, he'll be in trouble." So, whose perspective is right, the Broome County party official or crackpot and obviously mentally ill Gilda Ward from Mt. Vernon?

UPDATE: Katie Hill

And if that isn't bad enough, look who already is getting ready to toss his Russian sailor's cap into the race, a genuine Trump jailbird/coffee-boy:

Democrats Aren't Just Going To Hold Their House Majority-- They're Going To Expand It... By A Lot. Thank Trump, Not Cheri

South Carolina Blue Dog freshman Joe Cunningham chose to vote with the Republicans for his entire first term. Will any amount of money save him in an R+10 district?

Last year, the pundits and Beltway prognosticators who take Nate Silver seriously did the same thing they're doing this year. They acknowledged that Democrats running for Congress were ahead and then proceeded to argue if the party would win 3-4 seats or manage to actually win 6 or 7. It was idiotic because by the time they were writing that, the Democrats were already up by two dozen and momentum against Trump and his enablers was building rapidly and irresistibly. But in DC they didn't recognize that until Silver (and Cook) told them it was OK to... a few days before the election, and still just tepidly at that. Ally Mutnick, a Politico writer fell into the same trap yesterday with her headline, Why Republicans should be worried about their chances of retaking the House.

The Republicans should be worried alright-- but not about their inability to re-take the House. The battle is really over how many dozen seats they're going to lose next year. Oh, sure... there are a small number of accidental seats the Democrats may lose... deep in red territory, seats they should never have won and only won by accident: SC-01 (Joe Cunningham), NM-02 (Xochitl Torres Small) and OK-05 (Kendra Horn) being standouts. But who cares, all 3 are shit-eating cowardly Blue Dogs who vote with the Republicans and consistently drag the whole party conference rightward when it should be moving leftward. McAdams and Brindisi are two more, but neither is going to be defeated until 2022 (unless Bernie is elected, in which case 2022 will be another bofo year for Democrats and they'll all be safe for another cycle). Brindisi constantly whines that every time the Democrats want to do something-- like raise the minimum wage, for example-- he has a fit and screeches that they're going to cost him his reelection. Don't I wish! ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores for these 5 Blue Dogs I just mentioned:

• Anthony Brindisi (NY)- 20.0
• Joe Cunningham (SC)- 20.0
• Kendra Horn (OK)- 28.89
• Ben McAdams (UT)- 31.11
• Xochitl Torres Small (NM)- 40.0

Anyway, back to the actual Republicans (instead of the pretend Republicans). Mutnick wrote that "Democrats are building a financial bulwark around their House majority that’s going to be tough for Republicans to breach in 2020. Thirty-three of the 44 most vulnerable House Democrats have stashed an impressive $1 million or more in the bank well before the election year even begins. And their fundraising pace is not slowing down as they gear up to defend the chamber." We looked at the numbers Thursday morning. 36 freshman have over a million in their campaign accounts. Three who the Republicans are determined to defeat-- Josh Harder (CA), Katie Porter (CA) and, absurdly, AOC (NY) have around two million each. There are virtually NO Republicans who are coming near their Democratic opponents in fundraising, at least not yet. Take the 5 Blue Dog assholes I mentioned above. Brindisi's war-chest is bursting with $1,102,210 while his 3 GOP opponents are struggling to raise enough to rent office space. George Phillips has $61,326. Self-funder Stephen Cornwell has $65,943 and Franklin Sager spent the whole $3,527 he raised-- all but $100 of which came from his own pocket-- and has nothing at all. Cunningham is an even bigger target than Brindisi, but his 5 GOP opponents barely raised half of what he has combined! These numbers are totals raised as of September 30:

• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog)- $1,770,525
• Nancy Mace (R)- $487,199
• Katherine Landing (R)- $352,833
• Mike Covert (R)- $148,733
• Chris Cox (R)- $89,735
• Phil Norris (R)- $28)

The other biggest GOP target of the 2020 cycle, Kendra Horn, has a similar situation. She raised $1,477,040 and her 3 Republican opponents-- Terry Neese, Stephanie Bice and David Greene-- raised a combined $1,084,712-- which they are using up to fight each other. McAdams has 6 Republican opponents. McAdams raised $1,338,792 while the 6 Republicans combined have raised less than $800,000, half that all brought in by her most serious opponent, Dan Hemmert ($406,875). Xochitl Torres Small is another one the GOP hopes to pick off. She has 3 serious opponents-- but she's still way ahead of them:

• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog)- $1,660,921
• Claire Chase (R)- $510,790
• Yvette Herrell (R)- $441,403
• Chris Mathys (R)- $233,166

None of these 5 Democrats are political celebrities; none of them stand for anything or inspire anyone. They're just 5 hacks who want to build careers in Congress and maybe grow up to be rich lobbyists some day. They sit in the DCCC callcenter all day and dial for dollars, just like the DCCC tells them to. And it's paying off for them. How else could any of them possibly be reelected? An anti-red wave isn't enough in South Carolina, Oklahoma City or southern New Mexico and maybe not in the Salt Lake City 'burbs or upstate New York either. So they just raise money-- often from all the worst sources-- instead.

The GOP is struggling to adapt to a changing landscape; They can no longer dismiss the strong fundraising as an anomaly when it has remained steady throughout the first three quarters of 2019. And while operatives insist the disparity is not insurmountable, Democrats have undoubtedly amassed a head start in a battle that will be waged in suburban districts that lie in the most expensive media markets in the country.

For comparison, only nine the 30 Republican incumbents who lost reelection last November had more than $1 million in the bank after the third quarter of 2017.

Still, top Republican strategists remain undaunted, citing the potential for impeachment backlash to motivate voters and lessen the potency of their opponents’ cash advantage. They acknowledged the Democratic cash influx may continue but brushed aside concerns it would derail their shot at taking back the House.

“Their base is fired up, and ActBlue has done a brilliant job. But I think we’re going to close that gap,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), a former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman. “People know it’s going to be a very consequential election so there’s going to be plenty of money moved behind our challengers.”

Republican prospects now look brighter in places like Pennsylvania’s 7th District where Democratic Rep. Susan Wild has a wealthy challenger and less than $650,000 in the bank, and in California’s 21st District where Rep. TJ Cox was outraised in the third quarter by former GOP Rep. David Valadao, who is back for a rematch after losing narrowly last year.

Valadao: too late

Cox's district has changed drastically in the last decade. The PVI is a nice healthy D+5. Obama won it but times he ran and even Hillary beat Trump there, albeit by just 3 points. Cox isn't a very good member or a good candidate, but unless a scandal-in-a-box the GOP is working hard to gin up about him takes hold-- it hasn't so far-- he'll win reelection just based on the national trend. Wild is even safer. Her district has a D+7 PVIs. It's not possible for a Republican to win in a district like blue unless then run to the left. Wild is a New Dem and a nothing backbencher who no one would miss but Obama won the district both times-- and by a lot-- and even as weak a candidate as Hillary managed to squeeze out a win. Last year, Wild beat the Republican in all 3 counties. She won the race convincingly, 140,813 (53.5%) to 114,437 (43.5%). Leigh performed as a D+12 county for her and Monroe was even better-- D+16. Her "weakest" part of the district, Northampton County was still performing as a D+7 electorate and is what most vulnerable Democrats could only wish for. And even if Dean Browning is a self-funder, Wild has $644,040 in her campaign account to Browning's $220,907 ($140,000 of which came out of his pocket), so this district looks safe for Wild this cycle.

Mutnick acknowledged that there are "some warning signs for House Republicans. In several other swing seats, Democrats are gaining a financial edge that could become prohibitive." LOL-- nearly all of them. "Privately, some GOP operatives," she wrote, "concede it may not be worth the investment to go after certain freshmen with massive war chests who hold districts in pricey media markets where Trump is not popular." That's the buried key point of her piece.

Incumbents such as Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA), who is sitting on $2 million in the Los Angeles media market, and Sean Casten (D-IL), who has $1.4 million at his disposal in the Chicago area, may become less appealing targets because of the cost of attacking them on the airwaves. Both have at least $1.2 million more on hand than their challengers.

"A lot of them are again building up such strong races that it's possible they won’t get a competitive candidate," said Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA), a leader of the New Democrat Coalition. "We can take them off the playing field."

Republicans have been working quickly to launch WinRed, their online donor portal, which raised $30 million last quarter. But operatives admit it could take years or even cycles before it can match ActBlue, which funneled $297 million to Democratic candidates in the third quarter.

Cash-flush bank accounts mean Democrats will have the resources to drive messaging on the impeachment inquiry, if needed. Republicans have signaled they plan to paint Democrats as obsessed with impeaching the president at the expense of scoring legislative wins for their constituents.

"The key thing is to make sure that the candidates are able to get their voices out, and voters can hear what our incumbents are saying and understand the work that they're doing on their communities' behalf," said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), a chairman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's "Frontline" program for its most vulnerable members.

In addition to protecting their new majority, Democrats are also building cash reserves to pad their seat count. Ten GOP incumbents were outraised by their Democratic challengers, including some of Democrats' 2020 offensive targets like GOP Reps. David Schweikert of Arizona, Vern Buchanan of Florida, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington and Chip Roy of Texas, who faces 2014 gubernatorial nominee Wendy Davis.

Democratic candidates also have cash-on-hand advantages in competitive open-seat races in Texas, Iowa and Indiana. In the race for retiring Rep. Will Hurd's seat in West Texas, Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones raised $1 million last quarter. No Republican candidate cleared $200,000.

Another wrinkle for Republicans: Some of their best pickup opportunities have messy and late primaries that could sap resources. A crowded GOP field in a coastal South Carolina coast that Trump carried by 13 points won't be winnowed until June. And in Oklahoma's 5th District, widely viewed as Democrats' most vulnerable seat, a nominee may not emerge until after the August runoff.

But Republicans are confident Trump will be a boon on the ticket in the 31 Democratic-held seats he carried in 2016, and that Democrats' move toward impeachment will motivate the GOP base in a way that could be more effective than TV ads.

OK, there you go. Trump a boon? Democrats are actually Republicans think that way, that delusionally. That's the 5 districts I mentioned above but Trump is managing to turn Salt Lake area Republicans-- not to mention independents-- off so rapidly, that being against Trump will probably help McAdams win the seat... if he just had the brains to take advantage of that. I don't see any Trump-love outside of die-hard Republicans in Brindisi's district and, in the other 3... good riddance anyway. Other than that... Trump reverse coattails will be so powerful that even with the worst DCCC in history, the Democrats should be able to increase their majority in the House by a least 3 dozen... and in the Senate, win back the chamber solidly enough so that Vice President Warren's vote won't be needed.

Candidates Post Their Numbers

Tuesday at midnight was the FEC deadline for campaigns to get their quarterly fundraising reports in. A few candidates got extensions for one reason or another. But I wanted to share a few bits and pieces with you. Before I get to the congressional races-- which is what I want to talk about-- I have one presidential factoid to make clear. Yesterday, John McCormick and Chad Day of the Wall Street Journal reported that since he entered the race in July, Tom "Steyer has spent more than $26 million on TV ads, airing more than 53,000 spots in markets that reach Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada voters… All told, that is more than six times as many as the rest of the Democratic field combined." How'd that happen? Well, he's a billionaire and he wrote his campaign a personal check for $47,597,697.36. Would you call that trying to buy the election? Billionaires are allowed to do that. If you don't mind that because his messaging is ok and he seems to be progressive, imagine if a Koch or some other super-rich villain was doing the same thing.

OK, better news. Marie Newman is the progressive Democrat we have been supporting in Chicagoland for the seat held by reactionary Blue Dog Dan Lipinski. The DCCC has interfered in her race in every conceivable way, trying to guarantee that Lipinski-- who is anti-Choice, anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant, anti-healthcare, etc-- is reelected. The DCCC can control most unions and control front groups like End Citizens United but what the DCCC can't do is control grassroots donors. Lipinski, who gets most of his money from corporate PACs and lobbyists-- and has an average per donor contribution of just over $1,000-- only raised $177,741. Marie, who gets 100% of her contributions from grassroots donors, either directly or through groups like Blue America, reported a beautiful $351,326 haul last quarter-- and an average contribution of $46. I put that 2020 congressional thermometer on the right so you can contribute to Marie's campaign right now (by clicking on it). I spoke with her about her report yesterday and she told me she feels "incredibly blessed to have the grassroots support. Our campaign is partnering with and actively solving problems with the very powerful grassroots voice here and throughout our nation. I am honored to have accomplished this fundraising achievement with them. We are eternally grateful." How about we all give $47... to raise her average?

Now back to the DCCC. They tell their freshmen not to bother their pretty little heads with any of this policy stuff and leave that to Pelosi and Hoyer and their leadership team. Instead, they're supposed to spend all day on the phone begging rich strangers for money. The DCCC insists vulnerable freshman always have between a million and a million and a half dollars on their war-chests. As they spend, they're supposed to increase the pace of raising funds. It's a disgusting and grueling and hated system and it's at the heart of congressional corruption. Ironically, some of the freshmen who brought in the most money didn't follow the DCCC demands, but instead did it by performing and delivering for their constituents and for a national audience. It's the old Bernie Sanders/Alan Grayson model. It sure worked for AOC, as you're about to see.

AOC endorsed Bernie

The list below is not what the Democratic freshmen raised this quarter; it's how much each freshman now-- as of September 30-- has in their campaign war-chest (Cash on hand). I listed them from most to least. Some slacked off because they don't have serious challenges and some slacked off because they're self-funders-- like Steyer-- and couldn't be bothered and some just were too busy with... policy and delivering for their constituents. Most of the freshmen with the biggest war-chests are in the most vulnerable seats.

• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- $2,001,018 (even PVI)
• Katie Porter (D-CA)- $1,991,004 (R+3)
• AOC (D-NY)- $1,909,866 (D+29-- primary challenge)
• Chrissy Houlahan (New Dem-PA)- $1,841,041 (D+2)
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- $1,729,528 (R+4)
• Mike Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)- $1,683,939 (R+3)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)- $1,666,201 (R+3)
• Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI)- $1,608,391 (R+4)
• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)- $1,545,381 (even PVI)
• Ilhan Omar (D-MN)- $1,561,439 (D+26-- primary challenge)
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)- $1,530,320 (R+4)
• Antonio Delgado (D-NY)- $1,525,203 (R+2)
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)- $1,496,100 (R+3)
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- $1,473,889 (R+6)
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- 1,458,150 (R+6)
• Andy Kim (D-NJ)- $1,454,733 (R+2)
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- $1,453,457 (R+5)
• Sean Casten (New Dem-IL)- $1,447,538 (R+2)
• Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)- $1,439,979 (R+7)
• Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)- $1,341,507 (R+8)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- $1,337,647 (R+10)
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)- $1,269,804 (D+6)
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- $1,198,084 (R+1)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)-$1,195,089 (R+10)
• Mike Levin (D-CA)- $1,185,411 (R+1)
• Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA)-$1,181,602 (D+1)
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)- $1,177,711 (even PVI)
• Lauren Underwood (D-IL)- $1,174,106 (R+5)
• Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)- $1,161,442 (R+4)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- $1,148,389 (R+3)
• Jason Crow (New Dem-CO)- $1,123,002.82 (D+2)
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)- $1,115,148 (R+2)
• Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)- $1,113,173 (D+33-- primary challenge)
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- $1,102,210 (R+6)
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- $1,083,970 (R+2)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- $1,055,162 (R+13)

• Abby Finkenauer (D-IA)- $963,100 (D+1)
• Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)- $931,541 (R+1)
• Donna Shalala (New Dem-FL)- $785,311 (D+5)
• Jared Golden (New Dem-ME)- $793,860.22 (R+2)
• Chris Pappas (New Dem-NH)- $758,150.25 (R+2)
• Steven Horsford (New Dem-NV)- $753,888 (D+3)
• Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)- $658,185 (even PVI)
• Joe Neguse (D-CO)- $654,347.64 (D+9)
• TJ Cox (D-CA)- $645,652 (D+5)
• Susan Wild (D-PA)- $644,040.31 (D+7)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ)- $500,707 (R+1)
• Greg Stanton (NewDem-AZ)- $460,454.13 (D+4)
• Veronica Escobar (New Dem-TX)- $380,101.95 (D+17)
• Sylvia Garcia (D-TX)- $285,623.23 (D+19)
• Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)- $276,909 (D+34)
• Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)- $239,496.63 (D+13)
• Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN)- $225,884 (D+1)
• Ed Case (Blue Dog-HI)- $216,265.00 (D+17)
• Andy Levin (D-MI)- $210,665.98 (D+4)
• Deb Haaland (D-NM)- $201,489.16 (D+7)
• Chuy Garcia (D-IL)- $186,602.78 (D+33)
• David Trone (New Dem-MD)- $40,531.28-- loaned campaign $600,000. (D+6)

• Jahana Hayes (New Dem-CT)- n.r.
• Lori Trahan (New Dem-MA)- n.r.
• Madeleine Dean (New Dem-PA)- n.r.

I had long talk with one freshman, Andy Levin, who is not is a super-safe district but who did not raise the kind of money the DCCC demands of members like him. We had a long talk about it yesterday and this morning he sent me this note. When you're reading it, please consider giving Andy a contribution at this link. It's easy to understand why-- especially considering he has the single best voting record of any member of Congress.

Howie, you have given me a hard time for not raising enough money. I am determined to raise the money I need to do my part to change our world, fundamentally, root and branch, bend it towards justice. But I have to admit I hate the way it’s done now. Calling wealthy people and asking them for money is not the best way for a union organizer and climate change warrior to spend his time. I think the current system is so fundamentally broken. I’m proud that my Transparency in Corporate Political Spending Act was included in HR 1, a bill we passed through the House that would transform American elections-- including with significant public funding to reduce the advantage rich people have in American political life. It would match all contributions under $200 six to one!

Here are some things I’d rather be doing than dialing for dollars:

• Leading the charge to expose the absurdity of 31 Republican amendments to weaken the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act. (We defeated every one.)
• Being an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal and working with Alex and other colleagues to launch the Building Blocks of the GND. (Stay tuned!)
• Launching Medicare for All on the House Lawn and fighting for it in the Democratic Caucus.
• Walking the picket line with striking UAW workers.
• Going into the Fox News lion’s den and speaking the truth about the need to impeach Trump-- now!
• Playing hockey in the beer league with my buddies in Michigan’s 9th District.
• Saving the lives of Iraqi-Americans whom ICE is trying to deport to Iraq, where they would face torture and even death.
• Going to Bangladesh to visit Rohingya refugees and poor villagers and workers seeking to organize unions to achieve the most basic safety and dignity in ready-made garment factories.
• Whipping Democrats to have the courage to pass the Raise the Wage Act to get to $15 nationally by 2025 and eliminate sub-minimum wages for tipped workers.
• Helping pass a new and improved Violence Against Women Act.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Isn’t the world better off if I spend my time fighting to make real a radical new vision of America and our place in the world, so women can control their bodies, kids can get a great education, and workers can enjoy some reasonable share of the fruits of their labor? Let’s go!!

Revisiting Democratic Voting Records 6 Months Into The Term

There are only 5 freshmen with perfect voting records-- here are 3 of them

In March we decided to take a first look at how the new House members were getting started in the voting department. At the time, 24 freshmen still had 100% perfect scores-- and only 23 had "F" ratings. Today 11 freshmen are still graded "A" and just 5 have perfect scores and-- tragically-- there are now 42 with "F"s-- 42!

Thursday, just before they went home, the House voted on HR 582, Bobby Scott's Raise the Wage Act, which would-- if McConnell allowed it to be voted on it the Senate and Trump signed it-- gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. McConnell won't and Trump will never have to decide whether or not to-- but the House vote is valuable for our purposes. It was the last voted included in the scores and ratings we're about to look over. The Republicans tried killing the bill with a Motion to Recommit, which was barely defeated, 218-210 How did that happened! Easy! 14 Democrats voted with the Republican zombies to kill the bill. These were the 14, basically, all Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Alcee Hastings (Corrupt-FL)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Elisse Slotkin (New Dem-MI)
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)
• Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Susan Wild (New Dem-PA)

Add to that Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM) who then voted against the bill itself and you have a good list of garbage Democrats. Except for Alcee Hastings, who is graded "B" by ProgressivePunch, everyone else who voted so badly on Thursday earned an "F" since January. None of them had "A" grades in March but most of them have gone down, down, down since then.

First off, the 24 freshmen with perfect scores have now, as I said above, been whittled down to just 5:

• Andy Levin (D-MI) D+4
• Joe Neguse (D-CO) D+9
• AOC (D-NY) D+29
• Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) D+33
• Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) D+34

Michigan wins! Actually... Andy Levin wins, in one way. He may not be as famous as members of The Squad but he's the only freshman-- the only member of Congress in fact-- with a perfect score who represents as difficult a district electorally. The five above are arranged from least blue to most blue districts (according to PVI scores). There are also 11 non-freshmen members with perfect 100% scores so far this cycle, also listed here from less blue to most blue districts:

• Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) D+9
• Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) D+13
• Grace Meng (D-NY) D+16
• Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) D+18
• Mark Pocan (D-WI) D+18
• Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) D+21
• Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) D+27
• Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) D+33
• Yvette Clarke (D-NY) D+34
• Nanette Barragán (D-CA) D+35
• Barbara Lee (D-CA) D+40

Technically one anti-progressive is on this list too, Nancy Pelosi. But as Speaker, she cherry-picks the votes she wants to take and skips any tough vote she wants to, making her score is completely meaningless. So what about the worst Democrats this cycle-- what you would call the Democraps, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party? Ladies and gentlemen... the garbage of the cycle, so far, starting with 3 freshmen tied for last place-- a total of the 15 worst Democrats in Congress, each voting less than half the time for progressive initiatives (with raw scores... and arranged from reddest to least red district):

• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- 30.0% R+13
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 35.0% R+12
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 20.0% R+10
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 30% R+10
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 37.5% R+6
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- 37.5% R+6
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 20.0% R+6
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- 35.0% R+3
• Conor Lamb (D-PA)- 40.0% R+3
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- 25.0% R+3
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- 42.5% R+4
• Jared Golden (D-ME)- 32.5% R+2
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)- 42.5 R+2
• Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)- 20.0% R+1
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- 37.5% R+1

No one "decides" on ratings. It's done by a ProgressivePunch algorithm which uses the votes of a panel of 33 proven progressives to come up with progressive scores by taking ANY VOTE in which a majority of those 33 members voted in opposition to a majority of the Republican caucus; that vote then qualifies for the database. Now that Democrats have taken back control of the House, ProgressivePunch classifies as Crucial any vote in which the progressive side was on the losing side, in addition to all close votes as defined above. "Crucial" votes are votes in which there was strong progressive cohesion and at the same time a significant defection on the part of more conservative Democrats to the Republicans. It's important to remember that raw scores aren't the be-all and end-all to judging a member. The scores do not take into account anything other than votes. It doesn't matter, for example, that Pramila Jayapal wrote and introduced the new Medicare For All Act or that some people co-sponsored it and others didn't. Nor are examples of leadership, courageousness, Twitter abilities or any other non-vote factors part of the scores. Let's take Katie Porter. Her crucial vote score is pretty awful but her spectacular work on the House Financial Services Committee means way more than that in the real world. On top of that, she's in a Republican-leaning district-- PVI is R+3-- and is a top 5 NRCC target for 2020 and still came out for impeachment while dozens of members in safe blue districts still haven't. So... don't over-emphasize the scores out of context. Meanwhile, though, people often ask me if I advocate wiping out the Blue Dogs. The answer is yes-- AND, see that thermometer above... that will take you to a list of vetted progressives-- not better of two evils candidates-- who are running against genuinely terrible conservative Democrats in primary races. Please consider contributing.

There's More To The Lack Of Progress Than Just The Anti-Impeachment Freshman Dems

Speaker Nancy Pelosi by Nancy Ohanian

Pelosi is bending over backwards for the freshmen-- who Cedric Richmond, Louisiana New Dem and co-chair of Biden's campaign-- says to ignore because they're "scared of their own shadows." A small handful of them are the reason Congress isn't doing it's duty for the American people. Axios' Alayna Treene dug deep to see where each freshman stands in regard to impeachment and almost all of them are either ready to impeach now or looking for more investigations and leadership buy-in. One, though-- Katie Porter-- announced a dramatic change of heart last night and came out full-force for impeachment, even though she's the first Democrat to ever represent her red-leaning Orange County district. Pelosi and Hoyer call her a "majority maker" and advice freshmen like her to play down the whole impeachment thing and just pretend to be busy with policy. Ironically, Porter is busier with policy than almost any other member of Congress and it's her constituents who have been demanding impeachment hearings. Listen:




There are, however, a few contemptible careerists who are completely opposed to impeachment and are making a farce out of the institution-- and the constitution. "Of the 64 freshmen House Democrats 42 say they want Congress to continue their oversight investigations before launching impeachment proceedings. In January, 48 said they thought Congress should wait for the release of the Mueller report before considering impeachment. 13 say they support impeaching the president, up from only 6 in January. 4 have not made clear, on-the-record statements. Previously, only 3 members fell in this category. [And] 5 caution against impeachment, down from 7 in January."

New Jersey Blue Dog Jefferson Van Drew is probably the worst of the worst: "What I am done with, barring any new evidence, is any talk of impeachment investigations or divisive, unproductive politics. It is time to move forward." He isn't the only one whose statement might as well have been written by McCarthy, the NRCC or the White House.

Another lowlife Blue Dog Max Rose also sang from the Republican hymnal when he spoke with Politico: "If Democrats go down the path of impeachment then they should warm to the idea of going back to the minority," he hissed. "Right now we're in this incredibly childish game of impeachment chicken, and everyone has to start acting like adults... Congress needs to act responsibly... and then lets go back to actually doing the work of the American people that they sent us here to do." Protecting the country from a tyrant isn't what the voters expect?

One of the Blue Dog chairs, Anthony Brindisi (NY) refused to address the issue himself by had his communications director, Luke Jackson, tell Axios that "the congressman does not support impeachment."

Joe Cunningham (SC), also from the bottom of the Blue Dog barrel told the Post & Courier: "You're talking about basically nullifying the election of 2016 and what voters voted for. Straight from the NRCC.

Another dreadful Blue Dog, Xochitl Torres Small (NM) just tells her constituents that she flat out opposes impeachment. Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ) and Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT) both they they're against it but will reconsider when it's a "sufficiently bipartisan effort," Justin Amash (R-MI) not being enough for them.

And then there's Virginia Blue Dog Abigail Spanberger, one of the worst of the political cowards who, more than any other member, just ducks and ducks and ducks all questions. Quack, quack. "I'm focused on prescription drugs and infrastructure" is what she says. Someone give her a merit badge. Sunday's idiotic NY Times story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg on the subject was just another establishment excuse to bash AOC and whine about how the House "can be dominated by loud voices on the left" that endanger what Hoyer and Pelosi slyly call "the majority makers," almost all of whom are very conservative compared to Democratic voters nationally and are already muddying up the party brand.

Late Sunday night, reporting for the Washington Post, Rachel Bade wrote that a fear of Pelosi is keeping impeachment from moving forward. "Prominent liberals in the House, impatient with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s opposition to impeaching President Trump, seemed on the brink of a major breakthrough one night last month. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a key Pelosi ally and the man who would preside over the hearings, was preparing to buck his party’s leader and join the pro-impeachment movement." He wasn't; that's just a story they put out for the media.

Pelosi moved swiftly. She summoned her top lieutenants to a late-night meeting and hatched a plan-- that six party leaders, speaking in unison, would make clear to the chairman why impeaching Trump was a terrible idea.

“Republicans are stewing in their own juices,” Pelosi told Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY., arguing that the majority of the Democratic caucus didn’t support impeachment and that the party should devote its time to calling out Republicans for siding with a president trampling the Constitution, according to Democrats and other senior officials who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely describe what transpired.

Nadler left the room that night and has not publicly endorsed impeachment. “Impeachment is a political act, and you cannot impeach a president if the American people will not support it,” he has said.

As pressure has mounted in recent weeks on House Democrats to move more aggressively against Trump, Pelosi has demonstrated the firm grip she wields over her caucus-- quashing, at least for now, the push for impeachment. It is a command that colleagues say is drawn from a deep well of respect for the political wisdom of the most powerful woman in American politics-- and fear that challenging her comes with the risk of grave cost to one’s career.

In January, Pelosi blocked two ringleaders of the rebels who had tried to deny her the speakership from securing their preferred committee assignments-- even though the peace pact she made to reclaim the gavel precluded retaliation. And veteran lawmakers keenly remember how she rebuffed former Democratic Congress members Jane Harman (CA) and John Dingell (MI), two occasional thorns in her side, in their quest for chairmanships, moves many viewed as revenge for challenging her vision or authority.

“It’s much better to be with her than against her,” said Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA), a Pelosi antagonist who eventually backed her for speaker. “She doesn’t make it easy, that’s for sure.”

“One, you want to be a team player and support the leader’s position, but secondly you’re worried about your own self and . . . what can happen if you don’t follow along,” said another Pelosi critic, Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR), who summed up the concerns members face if they defy Pelosi.

The reluctance to oppose the speaker, according to interviews with more than 20 lawmakers and aides, has undermined the push for impeachment despite the growing support for ousting Trump among the party’s liberal base and several 2020 presidential candidates. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday found more Democratic voters backing impeachment-- 48 percent up from 30 percent last month-- but the nation divided, with Republicans and independents opposed.

Thus far, impeachment proponents in the caucus have been unwilling to call Pelosi out by name or rally support to begin proceedings. Consequently, the campaign has slowed, with a caucus minority of just over 60 lawmakers backing impeachment-- at least for now.

Longtime Pelosi allies say the fear factor is vastly inflated. Rather, they say it’s more that members respect the California Democrat, who has led them for 16 years and understands the political consequences of impeachment.

“I don’t think there’s anything more divisive we can do than to impeach a president of the United States, and so you have to handle it with great care,” Pelosi said Sunday in an interview with CNN. “It has to be about the truth and the facts to take you to whatever decision has to be there.”

Pelosi’s midterm election strategy of focusing on health care rather than the president helped Democrats capture the majority last year, as the party won in 31 districts where Trump had prevailed in 2016. Pelosi knows Democrats could lose those seats-- and their majority-- in a backlash over impeachment.

“She is the single smartest strategist that we’ve ever had... People are not wanting to second guess her because she’s been right on so many fronts,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a longtime Pelosi ally who has deferred to the speaker on impeachment.

To be sure, the impeachment push is far from over and could become more difficult for Pelosi to manage as Trump repeatedly defies congressional investigators.

Pelosi is “holding it together, but it’s fragile because we’re kind of one event, one piece of explosive testimony, one action by Trump away from that dam collapsing,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA).

But even if a majority of her caucus calls for impeachment, Pelosi allies predict she will withstand the pressure.

Over the past few weeks, Pelosi has worked behind the scenes to stifle the pro-impeachment movement in her caucus with strategically timed comments and announcements-- and nudges to her members to get in line.

When House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-SC) said impeachment was inevitable during a television appearance in early June, Pelosi’s staff mobilized quickly, calling his office and telling staff to have Clyburn walk it back, according to congressional officials familiar with those conversations.

When other senior Democrats started advocating for impeachment on television, Pelosi made sure at least some knew she was unhappy. During one recent private meeting, she snapped at Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-RI), a member of the Judiciary Committee, signaling she wanted him to soften his impeachment language and focus more on the legislative agenda, according to Democrats and other senior officials.

Pelosi declined to discuss private conversations.

Both pro- and anti-impeachment lawmakers say recent court rulings upholding Democratic subpoenas have helped solidify Pelosi’s argument that her strategy is working. And the fact that members are torn about what is right means many are content with deferring to their leader.

But Pelosi’s aptly timed announcements have also played a major role in easing tensions. When the clamor for impeachment grows louder following some explosive news about Trump defying Congress, Pelosi has made a point to echo the frustration of a pro-impeachment base by accusing Trump of a “coverup” or saying he should be “in prison.” Those remarks, her allies say, shield her as she pumps the brakes on impeachment.

Pelosi has also made a conscious effort to “let the air out of the balloon before it pops,” according to one aide. Last week, she greenlighted a civil contempt vote on the House floor to give frustrated members an outlet to vent.

On Thursday, after Trump told ABC News that he would be willing to take opposition research from a foreign country in the future, Pelosi was likewise ready with a response: Weeks earlier, she had instructed her committees to prepare legislation forcing all candidates to report such contacts to the FBI. She discussed the legislation at a news conference, batting down reporters’ questions about impeachment yet again.

Part of Pelosi’s effectiveness has been planning ahead. In late May, after Robert S. Mueller III said he did not exonerate the president and set off another impeachment firestorm, Pelosi asked her senior leadership to come to a Monday meeting prepared with counterarguments on impeachment, according to Democrats and other senior officials.

During the huddle June 3, Pelosi went around the room to ask her top allies what they thought of impeachment; all agreed with her. Caucus Chairman [and notorious suck-up] Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) even suggested the brave thing for members to do would be to resist the base’s call for impeachment.

Outflanked, the impeachment proponents did not push back.

Pelosi’s grip on her caucus stands in stark contrast to her Republican predecessors. Former speakers Paul D. Ryan (WI) and John Boehner (OH) frequently faced fierce public resistance from their rank-and-file and grass-roots opposition that hindered their effectiveness.

The conservative House Freedom Caucus not only broke with Ryan, but also regularly circumvented his leadership and appealed to Trump to get what they wanted, undercutting the speaker. Before Ryan, Boehner faced the same conservative critics who threatened to oust him over his pragmatism, eventually forcing him to resign.

While conservatives were suspicious of Boehner and Ryan, the Democratic base views Pelosi as one of their own-- loyalty Republicans actually inspired by attacking her as a liberal boogeyman during campaigns, said former Boehner chief of staff Mike Sommers.

“I believe that she’s about the only person that can manage their caucus right now,” he said. “She has a base of support that is unmatched within the Democratic caucus.”

Pelosi tightened her grip on the caucus by quashing a group of rebels who tried to prevent her from becoming speaker for the second time in more than a decade and emerging stronger after a showdown with Trump in January over government funding.

Pelosi’s move to punish her adversaries, as she did on the committee assignments, wasn’t the first time she had used hard-line tactics. In 2006, Pelosi refused to name Harman as chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee. The two had been at odds for decades, and when Democrats took the majority, Pelosi appointed Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), citing term-limit rules she could have overridden. In 2002, Pelosi backed a primary challenger to Dingell, who survived. One of her allies, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), then seized a committee chairmanship that Dingell wanted-- with Pelosi’s tacit approval.

“You can always disagree with her-- no problem. But you don’t take those outside to a news conference,” said former representative Steve Israel (D-NY), who worked alongside Pelosi for years. “I wouldn’t say they have a fear of her, but I think members who may want to oppose her think long and hard about it.”

Nowadays, few House Democrats criticize Pelosi by name, even on the emotional question of impeachment. If they do contradict her publicly, many give her a heads up, as Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) did before he announced his support for impeachment on Thursday, according to Democrats and other senior officials.

House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), a vocal impeachment backer, said she is not organizing an effort to change minds on impeachment and defers to Pelosi’s leadership.

“I don’t criticize her. I don’t blame her,” Waters said of Pelosi’s impeachment position. “She’s got the responsibility of doing the best job that she thinks she can do for this caucus.”

Cicilline bristled at the notion that the speaker was upset with him or his pro-impeachment colleagues. Asked why he didn’t rally votes for impeachment, he said the issue is too personal to try to twist arms on the matter.

Still, he argued it’s only a matter of time before the number of pro-impeachment lawmakers grows: “In those instances where the president acts in a way where he believes that he’s above the law... additional members of the caucus will be forced into no other choice but to open an impeachment inquiry and respond.”