The Trump Kiss Of Death: Republicans Learn To Lose In South Carolina

Yesterday in this time slot, we looked at the most unexpected congressional win of 2018, Kendra Horn's in Oklahoma City. But there was an almost an unlikely a win in another deep red state: South Carolina. OK-05 has a PVI of R+10... and so does SC-01. Trump won both districts by double digits in 2016-- and his candidates narrowly lost each November 6. The similarities are stunning:

• OK-05

• Trump v Hillary- 53.2%- 39.8%
• Horn (D) v Russell (R)- 50.7%- 49.3% (3,338 vote margin)

• SC-01

• Trump v Hillary- 53.5%- 40.4%
• Cunningham (D) v Arrington (R)- 50.7%- 49.3% (3,982 vote magin)

Joe Cunningham has already added his name to the Moulton letter against Pelosi, an inauspicious beginning of a congressional career for a Democrat. No one inside the Beltway thought he had any chance to win. Nate Silver's final forecast was a 9.4% shot (not even 1 on 10. He gave Arrington a 90.6% chance winning and the only public poll had her over Cunningham 49-42%.

Cunningham outraged Arrington $1,908,175 to $1,313,382 with $346,909 of her money self-funded). It's worth noting that much of what she raised had gone into the primary campaign against incumbent Mark Sanford. The NRCC spent $228,412 attacking Cunningham, while neither the DCCC nor Pelosi's SuperPAC spent a cent to help Cunningham. They didn't believe his race was worth investing in.

Cunningham's policy positions were moderate (neither progressive nor conservative). Example: he didn't come out for Medicare-for-All but his website states that he believes "healthcare is a right, not a privilege. No one in America should go bankrupt because they get sick. In the United States, no one should forego necessary or preventative care because they are unable to afford it... One of the many ways we can improve our current healthcare system is by encouraging the federal government to negotiate with drug companies to lower medication prices for people on Medicare, similar to how the Veterans Affairs Department does. Another possibility is allowing more middle class families to qualify for tax breaks to reduce their healthcare costs. We should also explore lowering the Medicare age requirement from 65 to 55 over the course of ten years." What you might term a liberal-leaning position for a red district. The Blue Dogs ignored him and the New Dems put him on their watch list rather than endorsing him.



The ad above was devastating for Arrington. But Monday evening the Post and Courier took a deep dive into how she could have lost in such a red district, a Republican disaster almost entirely of Trump's making. She beat Sanford because of Trump's last minute endorsement but she could never raise the money she needed to deal effectively with Cunningham and the NRCC refused to put significant resources into the race. They had, according to her general consultant, Andrew Boucher, been "pressing panic buttons since June here, screaming and yelling to little avail.”

But outwardly, the Arrington campaign exhibited little, if any, signs during the race that they were concerned about some of the factors they now say led to their candidate’s electoral downfall. The Trump-heavy messaging that worked for them in the primary stayed largely the same.

Some trouble spots are obvious, like the fundraising gap Arrington could never seem to close, or the fact that Cunningham beat them to TV and stayed on the air throughout the general election campaign.

Other challenges, like Arrington’s failure to appeal to suburban Republican swing voters, becomes a more complicated story to tell. Was it really a split among Republicans who backed Sanford, like she hinted at during her concession speech, or was this a Trump referendum vote?

What happened in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District has been largely reduced to catch-all explanations and sweeping generalizations about issues like offshore drilling, but the story of Arrington’s loss is as nuanced as the coastal district itself.

Though historical election data gives a Republican candidate in the district a built-in 10-point advantage, it is a unique district. In 2016, Trump bested Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the district by 13 points.

By contrast, the more moderate Mitt Romney outdid President Barack Obama in the district by 18 points.

But Charleston, the most populous county in the district, has shown some movement to the left, morphing in recent years from red to purple in voting preference.

Fundraising challenges

While national analysts continually categorized the district as “safe Republican,” Arrington and members of her campaign team met with the National Republican Congressional Committee in Washington, a customary practice following a primary win.

At the June 20 meeting, Boucher said their goal was to be placed into the NRCC’s “Young Guns” program for competitive congressional seats, where the NRCC would aggressively invest in TV ads and staffing resources for candidates.

Instead, they were put into the Vanguard Program, a designation that treated Arrington like a victor-in-waiting rather than a challenger-in-need. Even NRCC Chairman Steve Stivers said in a July press release that he had “no doubt” that Vanguard candidates like Arrington would win in November.

Efforts to reach the NRCC for comment were unsuccessful.

Arrington, meanwhile, struggled to fundraise.

On TV alone, the Arrington campaign said their numbers show Cunningham outspent them nearly 3 to 1.

The latest publicly available federal election reports from October show Cunningham raised about $1.9 million to Arrington’s $1.3 million during the election cycle. Arrington also dropped an estimated $346,909 to self-finance her run, according to campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org.  Post-election numbers due in December could show an even wider gap.

However, the numbers alone don’t tell the full story.

“Her dollar amount comes in over $1 million but a huge chunk of that went into the primary,” Boucher said. “When we were running in the primary, we had to spend every dollar we had to win. We couldn’t spend money to build campaign infrastructure.”

Arrington’s campaign had just three full-time staffers compared with the 10 or so with the Cunningham campaign.

None of Arrington’s full-time positions were dedicated to fundraising. Boucher confirmed that position was contracted out. By contrast, Cunningham dedicated four full-time staffers to fundraising.

But when fundraising numbers showed Arrington trailing Cunningham in a Republican district in mid-October, Arrington campaign strategist and spokesman Michael Mulé issued comments about their alleged momentum and the “tremendous support Katie has across the district.”

South Carolina Republican strategist Walter Whetsell said fundraising can be a reflection of a candidate’s ability or inability to connect with voters. He has run GOP congressional campaigns in South Carolina for U.S. Reps. Jeff Duncan and Ralph Norman.

“In political terms, there are two primary factors that define the best candidates: Their ability to raise money and their ability to get voters to like them,” Whetsell said.

But when pressed as to whether they thought they had a likeability issue with Arrington, Mulé and Boucher denied it. Boucher called Arrington “one of the best stump speakers” he had ever seen. Mulé said she was relentless despite being in excruciating pain every day following her June 22 car accident in which she was critically injured.

“Money talks, and it certainly did in this race,” Mulé said. “But money also made an issue out of something that wasn’t really an issue.”

Offshore drilling

In August and September, the Arrington campaign conducted polls asking voters for their most important issue in the race.

Illegal immigration was at the top followed by jobs and the economy. Offshore drilling polled at 1 percent, Boucher said. The highest it ever got, he said, was 4 percent.

“This is what is called a MacGuffin. It is an issue by which someone can target a specific demographic that they need, right?” Boucher said. “This was the issue that Joe Cunningham successfully was able to use to target the Democratic vote. If it has been a different Republican nominee, it would have been a different localized issue.”

The issue began to take off after Arrington stated during the primary at a Beaufort League of Women Voters forum that she supported Trump lifting the ban on offshore drilling along the South Carolina coast.

When two coastal mayors, who identify as Republicans, later endorsed Cunningham because of Arrington’s stance, she then issued a statement saying she did not did not support drilling.

To combat the comment, Arrington reiterated her opposition to offshore drilling at every turn. She also accused Cunningham of being a one-issue candidate.

Behind the scenes, the Arrington campaign spent about $50,000 on digital advertising to get their message out along with a targeted mailer campaign.

The issue was important enough that Arrington addressed the issue in a TV ad, where she stated she had met with the president to demand an exemption for the Palmetto State.

But by then, it may have been too little too late.

The Cunningham campaign had the Republican mayors-- Isle of Palms Mayor Jimmy Carroll and Folly Beach Mayor Tim Goodwin-- appearing on TV ads supporting Cunningham.

“That gave Republicans permission to cross the aisle and vote for a Democrat,” said Tyler Jones, Cunningham’s spokesman and strategist. “I’ve been working in this business 15 years in South Carolina, and I can tell you that’s never happened before-- ever.”



Whetsell said the offshore drilling issue also represented something far more challenging for Arrington to overcome.

“Katie Arrington’s defenders have missed the point on the relevance of the offshore drilling issue,” he said. “It’s arguable that offshore drilling cost her this election. If it did, it wasn’t on the merits of the issue. It was on the perception that she changed her position.

“What made this issue toxic was that voters perceived that she was misleading them. They perceived that she took one position in the primary then flip-flopped in the general.”

But when Arrington got her chance to speak publicly after her loss, she first blamed Sanford, whom she hammered in the primary for his Trump criticism.

Her unconventional concession speech comments flicked at something few national watchers understood about the underlying dynamics on the ground in this political race.

“You had an internal Republican war going on down there,” said Katon Dawson, a former South Carolina GOP Chairman.

  “With Katie backing the president in the primary and getting some help from him at the last minute to whip Mark, while you’ve got Mark talking about the things that matter to him and his opposition to the president, well, that just doesn’t lend itself to a unified party.”
Charleston’s suburbs turned out to be the battlefield.

Suburban voters and the Trump factor

Arrington’s loss looks baffling on a map. The 1st Congressional District wraps around parts of Charleston, Berkeley, Dorchester, Colleton and Beaufort counties-- linking a conservative mix of retirees, suburbanites and military veterans.

Arrington won Berkeley, Dorchester, Colleton and Beaufort counties. Where she lost was Charleston County, and specifically in suburban areas like Mount Pleasant and West Ashley.

“What defines a suburb?” Boucher hypothetically asked his fellow Republicans. “It’s a place where people care more about what their neighbors think than they do about their own political opinions.”

More seriously, Boucher said the hallmark of a suburban district is looking at the split between “Romney Republicans” and “Trump Republicans.” Where 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney performed better than Trump did in 2016, they considered a suburb.

Arrington knocked on doors in suburban areas of Mount Pleasant and West Ashley from August through the third week in September, Boucher said.

But if the Arrington campaign was aware that they needed to sway Republican swing voters-- especially GOP-leaning women who are finding it difficult to defend Trump-- their messaging didn’t reflect that.

Instead, it echoed national GOP talking points, which included equating a vote for Cunningham as a vote for Nancy Pelosi and claims that Cunningham favored an open border policy.

Already, Charleston Republicans are trying to take lessons from the loss.

“We can’t act like things haven’t changed,” said Larry Kobrovsky, chairman of the Charleston Republican Party. “To win in Charleston County, we have to now go beyond our base.”

Will Many 2020 GOP Candidates Want Trump's Kiss Of Death Endorsement?

People have short memories. The very first GOP incumbent running for reelection endorsed by Trump was Renee Ellmers in North Carolina. Aside from doing his carnival barker routine on Twitter, Trump recorded a robocall for her, which went out to every Republican voter in NC-02. All the far right groups backed George Holding but Trump gambled his reputation as a king-maker and party strong man on opposing them and backing Ellmers. She had been one of the first members of Congress (and the first woman member) to fully embrace his narcissistic-- not to mention racist, xenophobic and misogynistic-- campaign. Aside from Holding's own family SuperPAC, the American Foundations Committee, putting $330,580 into the race, the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity threw in $205,794 and the Club for Growth threw $787,841 into the red hot primary. Three other extremist groups, FreedomWorks, the Tea Party Patriots and the Susan B Anthony List, the lunatic fringe GOP version of EMILY's List, also jumped in to attack Ellmers. Four days before primary day Trump gave Ellmers the robocall you can hear below. He didn't give her any money or even pay for the call, but his backing for her was seen as a test of what his name meant to Republican primary voters. Although he did well in his own primary in North Carolina, he didn't do great in the Raleigh suburbs which make up much of this district. Ted Cruz had beated him in Franklin, Nash, Wilson, Chatham and Johnston counties. Ellmers lost— very badly. 5 of the 6 counties in the district went to Holding.

• George Holding- 53.38%
• Renee Ellmers- 23.64%
• Greg Brannon- 22.99%

You’d never know it from all his bragging and gas lighting, but the Trump kiss of death extended into the general election last Tuesday. 70.9% of the candidates Trump endorsed lost to Democrats— all candidates he either held rallies for or sent out one or more of his one-size-fits-all distinctive tweets for— 39 newly dead Republican candidates, although as counting continues, several more Trump-backed candidates are losing and his win-lose number will likely be 25/75% before the end of the week. Big Trump losers in the House include Dan Donovan (NY), Karen Handel (GA), his boy Danny Tarkanian (NV), Dave Brat (VA), Kevin Yoder (KS), Randy Hultgren (IL), Katie Arrington (SC), Keith Rothfus (PA), Pete Sessions (TX), Claudia Tenney (NY), Erik Paulsen, Rod Blum (IA), John Faso (NY), Lena Epstein (MI), Mike Bishop (MI), as well as:

Yesterday, Politico gave their readers what they billed as a Sneak peek at the House Democrats’ agenda and it wasn’t only about defeating Trump in 2020. At least not according to Patriot Majority, a Clinton-oriented outfit and SuperPAC. That video below is their ad that debuted on the Sunday talking heads shows today. It will run through Thanksgiving in what they described as a six-figure TV ad buy. No mention of Medicare-For-All or… PAYGO.

>

Kiss Of Death Politics

Part of Señor Trumpanzee's absurd-- but effective-- pitch during his election campaign was about how he would be a champion for "the forgotten men and women of America." Instead he's been a champion for corporate executives, the Wall Street banksters and the wealthiest and greediest among us. And, slowly but surely, the forgotten men and women of America have begun to catch on. Among Trump's base, his one legislative accomplishment, the Tax Scam, isn't polling all that well. Only 28% of rural Americans back it and only 29% of non-college whites like it. Even among actual Trump votes, just 57% are taken in by the scam. 63% of voters say the Tax Scam was designed mostly to benefit corporations and the wealthy, compared with 22% who say it was designed to help all Americans equally.

More voters now say they trust Democrats rather than Republicans to handle the economy. Worse yet for Republicans is the new SSRS poll for CNN showing that the advantage Democrats have over Republicans in a hypothetical Congressional matchup is continuing to grow, an indication that the building 2018 midterm wave is becoming tsunami.

Among registered voters, 56% say they favor a Democrat in their congressional district, while 38% prefer a Republican. That 18-point edge is the widest Democrats have held in CNN polling on the 2018 contests, and the largest at this point in midterm election cycles dating back two decades. The finding follows several other public polls showing large double-digit leads for Democrats on similar questions.

Only Beltway goofballs like Cook are cautiously predicting Democrats will net the 24 votes needed for a House takeover. Less conservative prognosticators more in touch with electoral reality see the GOP being absolutely crushed next year, with the House Democrats winning not 2 dozen red seats but 4 or 5 dozen! Independents are largely through with the GOP, bad news for every Republican outside of the Old Confederacy. Nationally, independent voters now favor Democrats over Republicans "by a 16-point margin, 51% to 35%, similar to the 50% to 36% margin by which they favored Democrats in fall of 2005, ahead of Democrats' 2006 recapturing of the House and Senate. The Democrats hold a larger lead overall now because Republicans make up a smaller share of the electorate than they did in 2005. And those Republicans who are still in the electorate are less enthusiastic about voting next year than Democrats."

On Thursday, Politico referred to Trumpanzee, Ryan and McConnell "as anchors on Republicans’ poll numbers." Their own poll, by Morning Consult, shows the generic congressional ballot advantage for Democrats 44-34%. and with Trump's already dismal favorability ratings continuing to crater. "Democrats’ 10-point lead on the generic ballot," they note, "is their largest for the year. The party has a 15-point lead among female voters, the poll shows, and a 3-point edge among male voters. White voters are split-- 39 percent for Democrats and 38 percent for Republicans-- but Democrats have a 59-point lead among African-American voters and a 27-point lead among Hispanics."

The double digit leads all polls have begun showing, including by Republican firms, is enough to overcome gerrymandering in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and perhaps even Ohio. Polls are also predicting high turnouts instead of the low turnouts normal for midterm elections.

Laura Oatman is the progressive candidate running for the Orange County coastal seat occupied by Putin asset Dana Rohrabacher. Yesterday she told us that "This is the pattern; Trump, full of promises and gaudy baubles promising the world, be it a hotel, a golf course, or a wall. And like so many others before them, the businessmen, the bankers-- Americans have learned that Trump cannot be trusted.  That their hope for something different-- which is understandable-- was misplaced.  Regardless, I won’t need Trump’s kisses to Dana, nor Putin’s bot factories behind Dana’s pages, to energize the voters of CA-48 and bring positive change to this district."

Sam Jammal, the progressive candidate running for the northeast Orange County seat occupied by Trump rubber-stamp Ed Royce is already clobbering Royce with his willingness to put Trump's whims ahead of his own constituents' needs. "Voters in our community," he reminded us, "resoundingly rejected Donald Trump last year and polls show they reject him today in even larger margins. It amazes me that Ed Royce is willing to fight for Trump's priorities instead of his own constituents. There won't be a day where we don't tie Ed to the Trump agenda. He is a 97% vote for Trump in a district that went for Hillary by nearly 9%. Our community won't stand for this, especially now that Trump took away net neutrality and Royce voted for a tax reform bill that undermines homeowners, seniors and young people in our district just so his donors could get a tax cut."

And this is a position of Democratic congressional candidates not just in blue California, but even in red Texas. Rick Treviño is the progressive candidate taking on Will Hurd in South Texas. "For months now," he said, "Will Hurd has been doing his best to distance himself from Trump. I'm sorry buddy, that stink don't come off. I can smell that vote from here. The GOP and Hurd enabled Trump and they must atone for the damage they've unleashed on our society." Jason Westin is running in a west Houston seat that's ready to flip. "Here in the Texas 7th district," he told us, "Donald Trump was the first Republican to lose in decades, so we'd love to invite him to campaign with John Culberson. Our district voted for Mitt Romney by more than 20% over President Obama, but things changed with Mr. Trump and his circus tricks. Our district is highly educated and the 'distract and divide' strategy Mr. Trump used fell flat, and that was before we saw his performance as President. The PPP polling done recently showed in TX-07 that Mr. Trump had a 37% approval rating, but amazingly John Culberson was only at 31%. I'm not sure how anyone could be less popular than Mr. Trump, but John Culberson has found a way. John Culberson has the second highest 'Trump Score' rating in the House per FiveThirtyEight, so he's clearly trying to get Mr. Trump's support. That sounds wonderful to us."

We've been talking for months about the Trump "kiss of death." Analysis of polls is now confirming this. "Trump is the most polarizing national politician. Just under a third of voters, 32 percent, say an endorsement from Trump would make them more likely to support a congressional candidate. But more voters, 38 percent, say a Trump endorsement would make them less likely to vote for that candidate. There’s also an enthusiasm gap: The percentage of voters who say a Trump endorsement would make them much less likely to vote for that candidate, 32 percent, is equal to the combined percentage who say Trump’s endorsement would make them much or somewhat more likely to support that person." Democratic candidates are mocking Trump on Twitter and Facebook, begging him to come to their districts to campaign for the Republican incumbents who are viewed as Trump and Ryan rubber-stamps.

The two least popular figures, according to the poll, loom large on the Senate battlefield: former White House adviser Stephen Bannon and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Only 17 percent of voters say a Bannon endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, while 39 percent say his backing would make them less likely to support the candidate.

McConnell’s numbers aren’t much better: Just 18 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate he endorsed, while twice as many, 36 percent, would be less likely.

The Bannon-vs.-McConnell proxy battles are most likely to play out in GOP Senate primaries, but the Politico/Morning Consult poll is inconclusive on which man is more valuable nationally to a Republican audience. Three in 10 GOP voters say a McConnell endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, but 23 percent say it would make them less likely. The numbers are similar for Bannon, the controversial Breitbart executive: 29 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by him, while 25 percent would be less likely.

Endorsements from most major political figures could hurt candidates more that they help them.

Democrats, meanwhile, hope to turn House Speaker Paul Ryan into a bogeyman for GOP congressional candidates. Ryan (R-Wis.) is a stronger surrogate than McConnell, but the percentage of voters who say his support would make them less likely to vote for a candidate (36 percent) is still greater than those it would make more likely (25 percent).