Will Millennials Turn Out This Time? There ARE Ways To Encourage Them To

Laura Dawn, the founder and chief executive of Art Not War, sent me that great 60 second video above, featuring Aja Naomi King, star of How to Get Away With Murder to help spread the word about the midterms to young people (in the 18-29 year old bucket). These are people with very progressive views-- and a very low propensity to turn out to vote, especially in non-presidential elections.

Another friend of mine, Richard Greene has the same idea, but with a completely different approach. Yesterday he told me that he's trying to put together a series of PSA-type TV spots that make it clear what exactly is at stake in the midterms and what the difference is between the 2 parties. Remember, Pelosi has led the Democrats down a big tent rat-hole where the Democrats stand for virtually nothing other than being the lesser-of-two evils-- no grand approach that will make anyone's life better-- not even something as simple and non-controversial as adding dental, eye and ear care to Medicare, for example. Instead, her midterm cri de guerre is PayGo, something no one in the country cares about other than her multimillionaire donors and cronies-- and certainly ZERO millennials.

How about these suggestions from Greene instead?

• If you care about renewable energy, vote for Democrats on November 6-- yes, Democrats in every single race... For U.S. Senate, for the House, for governor, for state legislators-- EVERY. SINGLE. RACE.

Why?  Because Democrats support clean and renewable energy and Republicans do not. The best renewable energy bill is called "The OFF Act" to get off of fossil fuels by 2030. 100% of the Members of Congress sponsoring this bill are Democrats-- one hundred percent. And ZERO percent are Republicans.

If you care about renewable energy, vote for Democrats on Nov. 6. ONLY Democrats.

And if you want bills like this to pass the ONLY way for this to happen is if you vote.

• If you care about equal pay for women, vote for Democrats on November 6-- yes, Democrats in every single race... For U.S. Senate, for the House, for governor, for state legislators-- EVERY. SINGLE. RACE.

Why?  Because Democrats support EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN and Republicans do not.

The best equal pay bill is called "THE PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT" which mandates that women get $1 for every dollar that a man makes in the same job. 100% of the Members of Congress sponsoring this bill are Democrats. 100%! 0% are Republican.

If you care about equal pay for women, vote for Democrats on Nov. 6. ONLY Democrats

And if you want bills like this to pass the ONLY way for this to happen is if you vote!

• If you care about comprehensive background checks to buy a gun in America, vote for Democrats on November 6-- yes, Democrats in every single race... For U.S. Senate, for the House, for governor, for state legislators-- EVERY. SINGLE. RACE.

Why?  Because Democrats support comprehensive background checks and Republicans do not. The best background check bill is called "THE BACKGROUND CHECK EXPANSION ACT" which closes the loopholes so that no criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists, rapists or mentally ill individuals can get their hands on guns. 100% of the Members of Congress sponsoring this bill are Democrats. 100%! 0% are Republican.

If you care about common sense gun policies, vote for Democrats on Nov. 6-- ONLY Democrats. And if you want bills like this to pass the ONLY way for this to happen is if you vote!

Greene's approach should even offend too many of Pelosi's big tent Democraps, since these popular issue solutions are pretty much all agreed on among members of her caucus. Some people might want to add in more cutting edge, even controversial issues-- like free state college-- very popular among millennials-- or Medicare-For-All or Job Guarantee or raising the minimum wage. But then you get about a third of the House Democrats--the Republican wing of the party-- New Dems and Blue Dogs-- starting to distance themselves from a party message they don't support.

Richard's moderate approach would at least be something that differentiates the two parties in an easy-to-understand and positive way... certainly better than PayGo at least.

The Democrats and Señor Trumpanzee Agree-- The Midterms Are All About Him

Democratic strategists couldn't be happier. Trump-- imagining that the national electorate is a reflecting of one of his hate rallies in red states-- is doing everything he can to turn next month's midterms into a referendum on him. Every poll shows most Americans-- a majority, not a plurality-- feels his unfit for the job. The latest from Politico for example, shows that 41% of voters approve of the job he's doing and 56% disapprove-- and that Democrats are more eager to get out and vote than Republicans are. The result: by a 10 point margin-- 48-38%-- voters want to see the Democrats take control of Congress.

As Chris Cadelago pointed out at Politico yesterday, "While Trump is not personally facing reelection until 2020, he is asking supporters to suspend their disbelief and imagine that his head is on the chopping block. The president is telling thousands of devotees at his rallies that a vote for Republicans is really 'a vote for me' and Make America Great Again... Presidents seldom lean in so far ahead of their first midterm election, fearing that an embarrassing rebuke could weaken their public esteem and presage disaster for their reelection bids. But Trump often personalizes events and tends to approach issues through the lens of his own experiences. He’s also shown little concern for shifting responsibility when the situation deteriorates."

More than a half-dozen administration officials and presidential allies said that after months of experimentation, they’ve homed in on the crux of Trump’s midterm message: Contrasting the strong economy, low unemployment and elimination of regulations under his watch with doomsday warnings about life under Democratic rule. “They want to erase the gains and plunge our country into a nightmare of gridlock, poverty, chaos and, frankly, crime,” as the president put it Thursday in Rochester, Minn.

“You don't hand matches to an arsonist, and you don't give power to an angry left-wing mob. And that’s what the Democrats have become,” Trump added Tuesday in Council Bluffs, Iowa. “They would turn our country so fast into Venezuela, and Venezuela is not doing too well, folks.”

This idiotic messaging in backfiring on Republican congressional candidates all over the country, as they disparage Democrats for wanting to turn America into Venezuela. No Democrats want to turn America into Venezuela and when draft-dodging Republicans like Bruce Poliquin in Maine accuse front-line war vets like Jared Poliquin of that bullshit, voters notice. Poliquin has been steadily sinking in the polls. Venezuela is not an issue in Maine. The fact that Poliquin voted to take away Mainers healthcare is. Same across the country, where Republicans who avoided military service (or any kind of service other than self-service) are attacking Democrats as being "unpatriotic." Like these women, who the dirty, stinking, corrupt Republicans are accusing of not being patriots! The Republican candidates, Trumpists one and all, really are vile and disgusting and need to be taught a lesson they'll never forget.

Putting himself at the center of the election comes naturally to Trump, whose outsider persona and history of taking on his party’s establishment don’t easily lend themselves to the role of standard-bearer. Aides still view him as more effective at attacking his own political enemies than he is at challenging the opponents of his allies. To that end, the president’s team is playing up his warnings that a Democratic congressional takeover would open the floodgates for higher taxes, spiraling crime, an unchecked border and the start of congressional investigations and impeachment proceedings against him.

“If it does happen, it’s your fault, because you didn't go out to vote. OK?” Trump recently told a crowd about the specter of impeachment. “That’s the only way it could happen. I’ll be the only president in history-- they’ll say, ‘What a job he’s done. By the way, we’re impeaching him.’”

He is also generically yoking Democrats to their leaders in Congress, while vilifying the likes of “Low-IQ” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), whom he relishes attacking, to drive home his message. In Minnesota, he asked supporters to imagine the power Waters would have if Democrats take charge.

“She’s going to take over Financial Services in Congress,” he cautioned, as the audience booed. “Can you believe it? Maxine Waters. That’s one of the most powerful committees in Congress.”

Not everyone is sold on the approach. Some Republican pollsters, including those who report seeing a bump in GOP enthusiasm over the Supreme Court confirmation fight of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, are unsure it will last-- and how much Trump is going to help. Others point to numbers showing the party slipping further with newly motivated key constituencies: college-educated women and younger women who tend to vote Democratic but don’t typically turn out for midterms.

Democrats see the president as a drag on his party, with the rallies underscoring how out of touch and beholden to Trump modern-day Republicans have become.

“The goal of a Trump rally is to incite anger, to distort reality, to spread conspiracies, and-- more than anything-- to feed Trump's own ego,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Daniel Wessel said. “But no Trump rally will distract Americans from Trump's numerous broken promises and his failure to improve the lives of working Americans.”

Trump took his traveling circus to a rally in Council Bluffs, Iowa-- just across the river from Omaha-- Tuesday. Every kook and nut in the area was there-- from Steve King, Jeff Fortenberry, David Young and Don Bacon to Governors Kim Reynolds (IA) and Pete Ricketts (NE) and Trump put on his regular clown show for everyone. "The Democrats have become too extreme, and they’ve become, frankly, too dangerous to govern. They’ve gone wacko." The word "frankly" is always great coming from someone who 65% of American voters know, sadly, can't open his pie-hole without lying.

Bacon, a Republican from the Omaha area’s 2nd District, speaking before the president, touted the recent tax bill and said that if re-elected he would work on health care and immigration.

“We’ve got a big choice to make here in four weeks,” he said. “We’ve got to choose between results and resistance.”

...Democratic Party leaders in Iowa and Nebraska-- Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Troy Price and Nebraska Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb-- issued a joint statement before the event criticizing the GOP for failing to keep its promises to rural Americans:

“Our farmers and rural communities have been left in the dust by the Trump Administration, Governors Reynolds and Ricketts, and their Republican allies. It’s time to put common sense back in charge of this country.”

Referring to King's tweet (above), J.D. Scholten told us "That's the whole problem with Steve King, who wants everyone to subscribe to his far-right ideology. Somewhere along the line, Steve King has forgotten that his job is to represent ALL of the people of our district. He thrives on politics of division and fear. When he retweets neo-Nazis, it’s because he doesn’t have an answer for farmers who have struggled to make a profit for four consecutive years. When he posts hateful memes on Facebook, it’s because he has no answer for people suffering without health care. He likes to distract people from his exclusion from the Farm Bill conference committee, the fact that he won't show up for town halls or publicly announced events, and his refusal to debate me. The people of this district deserve to have a representative that will show up and who isn't afraid of being held accountable.

Progressive Omaha area candidate, Kara Eastman was happy to know that Bacon is embracing Trump and his toxic approach to governance. Yesterday, after the Council Bluffs rally, she told us that "Trump thanked Bacon for his loyalty and said, 'Every time we needed him, he was there.' Though he pretends to be an independent voice for our district, Don Bacon is nothing of the kind-- we know he votes almost 100% of the time with his party, without regard for what his district wants or needs. It's time for Nebraskans to come together and elect a leader who actually represents our values, and doesn't just heed the President's orders." 

What Will It Take For Congressional Republicans To Split From Trump?

According to a new poll from Morning Consult, just around a third of Americans feel Trump is trustworthy, about the same number who say he has the judgement need to be president. 77% of respondents, on the other hand, feel he's arrogant and 60% say he's reckless, unwilling to admit mistakes. Somehow they managed to find enough people who think he's knowledgeable to report that 41% of Americans are still fooled by the most ignorant man to ever be installed in the White House. Overall, his approval numbers are the lowest ever.42% approve and 50% disapprove.

Perhaps more worrying for the president-- and for Republican members of Congress ahead of the 2018 midterm elections-- is a declining strength in support among the voters who elected him. While 84 percent of Trump voters still say they approve of the president’s work, the share of those voters who strongly approve of him is down to 42 percent, another new low. In the previous poll, 49 percent of Trump voters strongly approved of him.

Monmouth University also released a poll today and it shows 53% disapproval and 39% approval for Señor Trumpanzee. Putin-Gate is taking its toll-- in a big way. And its worst in the swing counties that allowed him to slip into the White House despite losing the popular vote 65,853,516 (48.2%) to 62,984,825 (46.1%). Monmouth points to 300 counties with a narrow margin between Trump and Clinton and it is in these counties where Trump's approval ratings have plummeted. Never mind the counties where Trump did really well or the counties where Clinton did really well. This is about counties like Kenosha and Racine in Wisconsin where Trump beat Clinton, respectively, 36,025 (47.5%) to 35,770 (47.2%) and 46,620 (49.8%) to 42,506 (45.4%). Voters there are not just disappointed in Trump, they're ready to dump their local Republican congressman. And their local Republican congressman happens to be Paul Ryan, whose current reelect numbers are just 44% (with 51% looking to replace him). This is about Bucks County in Pennsylvania, where Hillary beat Trump 165,861 (48.4%) to 163,873 (47.8%) and about Erie County in the same state, where Trump beat Clinton 57,168 (48.8%) to 54,820 (46.8%) and about Broome and Dutchess counties in New York, where Trump beat Clinton 49.0-45.3% in the former and 48.4-47.3% in the latter. In Florida we're looking at Duval County, which went 49.0-47.5% for Trump and St. Lucie County, where Trump won 49.9% to 47.5%. These are the kinds of counties that are going to determine the 2018 midterms (and, ultimately, whether or not Congress impeaches Trump). And these are the counties where Trump's approval numbers are falling the fastest.

Overall, in these swingy counties, Trump's approval rating is now a dismal 34%... 5 points lower than the national average. In his NY Times column Thursday, Thomas Edsall points to the plight of Republicans-- presumably Republicans who represent these kinds of counties-- who must figure out what poses a greater risk to their careers-- supporting a potential impeachment or to close ranks behind Señor Trumpanzee? "To defy Trump or to defend him? To provoke anger among the legions of Trump loyalists back home or to run the risk of turning the 2018 midterms into a Democratic wave election?"

Members of Congress, he reminds us are "single-minded seekers of re-election." Keep that in mind along with the fact that "the most important development on the Republican side of the aisle is the rise in recent years of primary challenges from the right. Highly conservative insurgents have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to defeat Congressional incumbents who fail to toe the line."

Seth Masket, a professor of political science at the University of Denver, summarized the quandary facing members of Congress in a polarized nation:

Republicans in particular represent much more conservative districts than they used to, and they risk offending a much more active and ideologically demanding group of activists in primary elections should they be seen working with Democrats or undermining President Trump. Relatedly, the policy differences between the two parties are much greater than they used to be, so doing anything that could lead to the other party being in power is a potentially very costly exercise. Bipartisanship is just riskier and potentially costlier behavior than it used to be.

The success of right-wing challengers to centrist Republican members of the House and Senate stems from a set of mutually reinforcing trends.

These trends include growing ideological consistency in the electorate, geographic sorting, gerrymandered districts, the perception of partisan opponents as mortal enemies and the emotional intensity underpinning issues of race and sex.

For a Republican senator or representative who is considering a break with the Trump administration, these developments in the electorate pose a hazard. Defection risks inflaming primary voters in 2018.

According to American National Election Studies, 45 percent of Republican voters described themselves as conservative in 1974. By 2012, 70 percent said they were conservative.

The Pew Research Center has shown that turnout in Republican primaries tilts even farther to the right. To give one example, in 2012 Pew found that 75 percent of Republican primary voters-- whom Pew describes as “high engagement Republicans”-- described themselves as conservative, more than triple the 23 percent of self-described liberals and moderates.

These voters view the Democratic Party not only as the opposition, but as imperiling the national welfare (a view shared in reverse by “high engagement” Democrats). Under these circumstances, bipartisan cooperation can seem positively dangerous.

The accompanying chart, which is based on data from Pew, shows that 62 percent of engaged Republicans-- those most likely to cast primary votes-- say the Democratic Party makes them feel “afraid,” 58 percent say it makes them “angry” and 58 percent say it makes them “frustrated.”

At the same time, according to Pew, the percentage of Republican voters whose view of the Democratic Party is unfavorable grew from 74 percent in 1994 to 91 percent in 2016. Equally important, the percentage with “very unfavorable” views has nearly tripled, from 21 percent in 1994 to 58 in 2016.

The increase in safe House seats from 1992 to 2012 is the driving force behind the growing significance of primary elections and the declining salience of general elections. For Republicans, safe districts-- where the potential threat to an incumbent is in the primary and not in the general election-- rose from 136 in 1992 to 191 in 2012. For Democrats, the number of safe districts grew from 111 in 1992 to 156 in 2012.

Republicans focused on self-interest-- or self-preservation-- are under pressure from all directions.

Nolan McCarty, a political scientist at Princeton, made the point in an email that, given the current level of polarization, a Republican who challenges his party by taking on President Trump and still survives the primary may not be rewarded in the general election because there is “much less opportunity for offsetting support from Democrats and Independents.”

Another factor elected Republicans must consider in calculating their positions is an upsurge in straight ticket voting since 1992.

Marc Hetherington, a political scientist at Vanderbilt, argues that voting patterns in states and districts are making it increasingly hazardous for a politician to break ranks:

Consider voting behavior in the 2016 election. For the first time in history, every state that voted Democratic voted for a Democrat for Senate. Every state that voted Republican voted for a Republican for Senate. As for congressional districts, the number of split voting districts between the presidential and House elections reached a minimum since such records have been kept, which dates to 1920.

In the current political climate, Hetherington said:

Republicans hate the Democratic Party so much and Democrats hate the Republican Party so much that they do not view the other side as a viable option.

In the past, when the electorate was less partisan,

Republicans would have to worry about what Democrats in the electorate thought because they counted on getting votes from Democrats when they had to face the voters in the fall. Now, they do not.

Along similar lines, Martin Gilens, a political scientist at Princeton, noted:

Compromise and bipartisanship are increasingly viewed as betrayal. In recent years, challenges to party leadership have come only from extremist factions like the Tea Party, not from centrists concerned with maintaining institutional norms or adopting policies with widespread appeal.

...While a great danger facing Republicans-- one with vast consequences going forward-- is that they will wait to act longer than their voters are prepared to tolerate, there are clear signs that Republican willingness to stand behind Trump has begun to fray.

On Wednesday, before Mueller’s appointment was announced, two Republican Senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine had already suggested that it might well be time for the appointment of a special prosecutor. Other Republican senators who have publicly criticized Trump include Ben Sasse of Nebraska, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

From Trump’s vantage point, support in Washington, and in the electorate as a whole, is falling off. He will continue to try to make a political virtue of this, arguing, as he did in his commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy on Wednesday, that “the people understand what I’m doing and that’s the most important thing” and that “I didn’t get elected to serve the Washington media-- I got elected to serve the forgotten men and women and that’s exactly what I’m doing.”

The question now is what this reckless president with little regard for the law will do as the challenge to his legitimacy deepens.

The DCCC's Midterms Problem

Carol Shea-Porter

The DCCC wants you to think Democrats can't win in midterm elections and it isn't their fault. But Democrats can and have won in midterm elections and when they do lose, it is certainly at least in part due to the incompetence and corrupt nature of the DCCC and the basic Republican-lite philosophic underpinnings of the organization itself. Generally, it has been the party that's in power that loses seats during the midterms. There are, of course, exceptions but let's go back ten years and look at how the Democrats captured the House in 2006, a midterm while Bush-Cheney was in the White House.

That year 42,338,795 voters (53.2%) pulled a lever for a Democrat and 35,857,334 (44.4%) pulled a lever for a Republican. The Democrats won a net of 31 seats and won the majority that replaced right-wing child molester Denny Hastert with Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker in history. The 233-202 Democratic majority was fattened in 2008 when Obama won the White House and the Democrats netted another 21 seats, giving them a 236-199 majority, a majority long since dissipated by a DCCC, under Chris Van Hollen and Steve Israel, more concerned with electing corrupt conservatives than with electing Democrats.

But let's look at what happened to the class of 2006 as their 10th anniversary approaches. First a couple of words about the primaries that year. Blue America took on Rahm Emanuel in several and helped defeat his Republican-lite candidates with more progressive, grassroots figures, primarily in California where Jerry McNerney beat Steve Filson and then went on to oust powerful GOP incumbent Richard Pombo, in New Hampshire where we helped Carol Shea-Porter stop the establishment Rahm candidate, Jim Craig, and then go on to defeat Republican incumbent Jeb Bradley, and in New York where John Hall eviscerated Rahm's "ex"-Republican candidate, Judy Aydelott, and then went on to take out GOP incumbent Sue Kelly.

Still most of the candidates the Democrats ran were Rahmish conservatives. Here's the full list of the Democratic challengers who won in 2006... and what happened to them since:

• Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)- defeated in 2010
• Gabby Giffiords (Blue Dog-AZ)- shot in 2011, retired
• Jeff McNerney (D-CA)- still serving
• Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO)- still serving
• Joe Courtney (New Dem-CT)- still serving
• Chris Murphy (New Dem-CT)- serving in the Senate
• Kathy Castor (D-FL)- still serving
• Tim Mahoney (Blue Dog-FL)- defeated in 2008 (sex scandal)
• Ron Klein (D-FL)- defeated in 2010
• Hank Johnson (D-GA)- still serving
• Mazie Hirono (New Dem-HI)- lost 2014 Senate primary
• Phil Hare (D-IL)- defeated in 2010
• Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)- won Hail Mary pass 2012 Senate bid
• Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN)- defeated in 2010 Senate bid
• Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN)- defeated in 2010
• Bruce Braley (D-IA)- defeated in 2014 Senate bid
• Dave Loebsack (D-IA)- still serving
• Nancy Boyda (ex-Republican/Blue Dog reject-KS)- defeated in 2008
• John Yarmuth (D-KY)- still serving
• John Sarbanes (D-MD)- still serving
• Tim Walz (D-MN)- still serving
• Keith Ellison (D-MN)- still serving
• Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)- defeated in 2010, won in 2012, lost in 2014
• Paul Hodes (D-NH)- defeated in 2010 Senate bid
• Albio Sires (D-NJ)- still serving
• Yvette Clarke (D-NY)- still serving
• John Hall (D-NY)- defeated in 2010
• Kirsten Gillibrand (Blue Dog-NY)- appointed senator in 2008
• Mark Arcuri (Blue Dog-NY)- defeated in 2010
• Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)- avoided certain defeat by retiring in 2012
• Charlie Wilson (Blue Dog-OH)- defeated in 2010
• Betty Sutton (D-OH)- defeated in 2012
• Zack Space (Blue Dog-OH)- defeated in 2010
• Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)- defeated in 2012 primary
• Joe Sestak (D-PA)- defeated in 2010 Senate bid
• Patrick Murphy (Blue Dog-PA)- defeated in 2010
• Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA)- defeated in 2010
• Steve Cohen (D-TN)- still serving
• Nick Lampson (Blue Dog-TX)- defeated in 2008
• Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX)- defeated in 2010
• Peter Welch (D-VT)- still serving
• Steve Kagen (D-WI)- defeated in 2010

Today not a single one of Rahm's dreadful Blue Dog candidates is still serving in the House, although two managed to get into the Senate. Of the three progressives that Blue America backed and who beat the Rahm conservatives-- McNerney is still in the House, Shea-Porter is about to win her seat back, and in John Hall's old district, Zephyr Teachout is the probable next congresswoman.

Please consider helping progressives running this year, from the aforementioned Teachout to hard-core reformers like Tim Canova, Maria Chappelle-Nadal, Eric Kingson, Alex Law, Dave McTeague, Pat Murphy and Lou Vince up against DCCC hacks, who would, if they win on Bernie's or Hillary's coattails, just lose the seats in 2018 anyway.

What Did Pelosi See In Steve Israel? The DCCC Chairman Shows What He's Worth

In the final week of the midterm election cycle, House Republicans are on the offensive and an abysmally-led DCCC is retreating almost everywhere. Boehner is on the attack against Democratic incumbents while the DCCC-- which bragged all cycle about they have out raised the Republicans-- now says it doesn't have the resources to spend on its recruits and has abandoned almost all of them to their fates and the hands of surging Republicans.

The DCCC has been reduced to spending millions in districts that were "in the bag," like NY-11, where Michael Grimm was indicted on 20 criminal counts but will probably beat Israel's pathetic recruit, Domenic Recchia, or CA-31, where another execrable DCCC recruit, worthless bank lobbyist Pete Aguilar is making history by losing an overwhelmingly blue (D+5) district, despite out raising his GOP opponent $1,957,871 to $415,375. The GOP hasn't spent a nickel on behalf of Paul Chabot and the DCCC and their House Majority PAC have spent $1,297,759. Aguilar was also bolstered by the corrupt, right-wing Credit Union National Association PAC which took time out from their efforts on behalf of reactionaries Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Steve Southerland (R-FL) and Tony Strickland (R-CA) to pump $346,841 into Aguilar's campaign. All that said, an internal Aguilar poll shows him down 2-- and down 9 among high-propensity voters. As the DCCC should have learned in 2012, Aguilar's sleazy corrupt demeanor may make him fit in amazingly well among Beltway New Dems and the Steve Israel circle but ordinary working families in the Inland Empire want nothing to do with him. Had Steve Israel not interfered in the primary, Eloise Reyes would be up by double digits going into next week's vote.

Another Israel recruitment disaster has come home to roost in NY-19, a blue (D+1) district in Upstate New York, where Obama beat both McCain and Romney. The DCCC recruited a self-funding multimillionaire, turned him into a mystery-meat nothing and who now looks like he might not even get 40% of the vote. Last night the Siena Poll showed unimpressive GOP incumbent Chris Gibson leading Sean Eldridge by 23 points. This is a blue district... in New York. If Steve Israel, the most incompetent DCCC chairman since 1866, doesn't even know how to win those, why does anyone think he can win anything anywhere? Eldridge has outspent Gibson $4,659,027 to $1,798,884-- most of which, $2,840,000, came from his own personal bank account.

A week before Election Day, Republican Representative Chris Gibson continues to hold a commanding lead over Democrat Sean Eldridge. Gibson holds a 58-35 percent lead, virtually unchanged from his 57-33 percent lead seven weeks ago, according to a new Time Warner Cable News/Siena College poll of likely 19th C.D. voters released today.  By a 60-25 percent margin, voters have a favorable view of Gibson, whereas Eldridge divides voters, with 33 percent viewing him favorably and 35 percent unfavorably.

“Gibson heads into the final week of the campaign largely unscathed and with a commanding 23-point lead over Eldridge,” said Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg. “Over the last seven weeks, the Eldridge campaign has gained little or no traction with practically any constituency.

“Gibson has overwhelming support from 86 percent of Republicans, strong support from 60 percent of independents, and even has the support of more than one-quarter of Democrats, all virtually the same as the previous Time Warner Cable News/Siena poll,” Greenberg said. “He maintains a 13-point lead in the Ulster/Dutchess portion of the district and better than two-to-one leads in the other regions. He has a dominating 42-pont lead with men and leads among women by nine points. He leads by more than 20 points with voters 55 and older and has an even larger lead with voters younger than 55,” Greenberg said.

And the only really good news coming back from the pollsters-- from MI-06, the Paul Clements race against Fred Upton-- is a race Steve Israel not only refused to let the DCCC get involved with but one in which he worked actively against the Democrat to help the Republican! Despite Israel's treachery and despite him having wasted millions of dollars on races in Michigan he's now abandoned as hopeless, the MI-06 race is now within the margin of error. An entirely grassroots effort, it could well be the only glimmer of hope for House Democrats next Tuesday!

The race in Michigan Congressional District 6 has narrowed significantly in recent weeks, as voters have learned more about the negative aspects of Fred Upton’s tenure in Congress, and have been introduced to a viable alternative in Democrat Paul Clements. Additionally, political gaffes by Upton have brought scrutiny to this long-term incumbent who has never faced a credible challenger in a district that Barack Obama won in 2008 and trailed Mitt Romney by only 1.4 percentage points in 2012. Paul Clements has momentum in the closing days of the campaign, in what has turned out to be the most competitive congressional race in Michigan, for a seat that many thought was safe for Republicans.

Paul Clements has momentum on his side, and a top-ticket Democrat leading the way. The race for Congress has narrowed significantly since our last survey only three weeks ago (43% Clements – 47% Upton – 10% undecided). At the top of the ticket, Democrat Gary Peters has a strong lead in the U.S. Senate race in this district (48% Peters – 39% Terri Lynn Land – 12% undecided)... Clements’ path to victory comes by converting Democrats and Independents who are already supporting Democrat Gary Peters in the U.S. Senate race to his side.

...With persistent outside pressure focused on how Fred Upton has changed in the 27 years he has spent in Washington, it is possible for Paul Clements to defeat a long-time Republican incumbent. It is the job of the Clements campaign to finish with powerful positive communications in the closing week of the race, to continue to introduce Clements to Democrats and Independents who are inclined to split their ticket, but have growing reservations about supporting Fred Upton. With a strong fundraising week to finish the campaign, we can make this the “race to watch” in Michigan next Tuesday.

As recently as last week, Israel was working the phones, demanding Democratic groups not help Clements beat Upton. If Clements wins next week, it will be a resounding victory for the grassroots over the corrupt, transpartisan Beltway Establishment of which both Upton and Israel are so emblematic.

Tuesday Alex Isenstadt wrote that House Democrats are fretting over the prospect of debilitating losses Tuesday. They should have fretted when Pelosi reappointed Israel after his disastrous 2012 cycle. Israel is trying too blame progressive donors and President Obama's unpopularity to take the spotlight away from his own corruption, his deals with the GOP leadership, and, most of all, his breathtaking incompetence.

Looking to contain the damage, Democrats are pumping money into liberal congressional districts that were long thought to be safely in their column. Over the last several days, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has directed resources to maintain seats in Hawaii and Nevada, both of which broke sharply for the president in 2012-- an indication of just how much the terrain has shifted against the party over the past two years.

Other unexpected races are suddenly in play. Some Democrats, for example, have begun to worry about the prospects of California Rep. Lois Capps, an eight-term congresswoman who is typically a lock for reelection but who now finds herself in a competitive race against Republican Chris Mitchum, a perennial candidate and the son of the late actor Robert Mitchum. In a sign of how seriously national Democrats are taking the threat, the DCCC is making a last-minute purchase of $99,000 worth of radio advertising in the Santa Barbara area to boost Capps, according to a committee aide.

...Capps isn’t the only incumbent Democratic officials are scrambling at the last minute to defend. DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) recently coordinated a fundraising event for Rep. Dave Loebsack, a fourth-term Iowa incumbent who has recently come under barrage from GOP groups, and reached out to donors on his behalf.

On Tuesday afternoon, Israel and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will hold a hastily-planned conference call for members to provide them with an update on the political terrain and to press them to contribute to the party’s coffers.

...In many instances, Republicans are spending money to put races in play that had long been considered safe for Democrats. American Action Network, a national group with ties to House Speaker John Boehner, has begun airing TV commercials in blue districts in Hawaii and eastern Iowa.

The maneuvering has prompted Democratic groups to yank money from districts they’re trying to seize from Republicans in order to protect seats they already control. Over the past several weeks, the DCCC has pulled funds from top recruits in Colorado and Virginia and begun running TV ads in two eastern Iowa districts, both of which Obama won in 2012.

The Wall Street Journal had a similar report yesterday-- Republicans advancing, Israel leading Democrats into retreat after retreat. "The last-minute maneuvering has the potential, if races break their way, to bring Republicans closer to the 12-seat gain needed to match the party’s post-World War II record of holding 246 House seats. Democrats, aware of the headwind against them, have withdrawn money recently from some GOP-held districts and redirected it largely to endangered incumbents in an effort to limit GOP gains."

The Republican entrance into additional districts-- in Iowa, Nevada and elsewhere-- adds to evidence that voters are making a late turn away from the Democratic party. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Annenberg survey released Sunday found Republicans with a four-point lead among registered voters on which party should control Congress, with 46% favoring the GOP and 42% preferring Democratic control.

Had Pelosi chosen a more competent, less corrupt DCCC chair after Israel wrecked the Democrats' hopes to win back the House in 2012, would the situation be different today? Undoubtably... and we'll be exploring the specifics of that, race by race, over the next two weeks.

How Big A Disaster Will Steve Israel Prove To Be In November?

Yesterday Steve Israel was crowing on Twitter how 4 powerful senior Republican committee chairmen are retiring (Doc Hastings, Mike Rogers, Buck McKeon and, now, Dave Camp). What his tweets conspicuously left out, of course, is that Israel didn't recruit any candidates against them and actually undermined candidates who ran against Rogers and McKeon last cycle. Israel is well-known as an incompetent lummox incapable of putting together a two-cycle plan to beat vulnerable Republicans. They have nothing to worry about from him. He leaves his old fraternity brothers from the Center Aisle Caucus alone and his little deal with the NRCC to keep his own seat safe leave GOP committee chairs unchallenged. As we saw earlier today, Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is the best example of Israel's venal incompetence on both counts.

On top of all that, Israel, an "ex"-Blue Dog, is more interested in stocking the House Democratic caucus with corrupt conservatives than he is in winning back the House majority. His recruiting has been horrifying-- and sure to discourage Democratic voters from coming to the polls. In a midterm election, when its all about base turnout, Israel has come up with some of the most vile and unattractive candidates imaginable. Why, for example, would any Democrat-- other than a Blue Dog or a yellow dog-- both to vote in OH-06, after Israel chased away state Senator Lou Gentile in favor of right-wing, anti-Choice bigot Jennifer Garrison. Garrison is beloved by the NRA but they'll be voting for the Republican incumbent. Meanwhile, she made her reputation (as "the Sarah Palin of Ohio") by relentlessly attacking LGBT equal rights and by taking disgusting anti-Choice positions. From an e-mail NARAL sent to its members in Ohio about her:

Jennifer Garrison currently serves in the Ohio House of Representatives and has a 0% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.

Rep. Garrison showed just how extreme her anti-choice position is when she filled out the 2008 candidate questionnaire for Ohio Right to Life, saying she would:

• support legislation in Ohio to outlaw abortion (with only an exception to save a woman’s life),

• support legislation that would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception, and

• support state funding for so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” that lie to women about the risks of abortion and never refer patients for abortion or birth control services.

Representative Garrison does not share our values.

Israel expect this to turn out the Democratic base?

That's right; she shares Republican values. So do several Israel recruits, some of whom are conspicuously anti-Choice, anti-gay and pro-gun. That's supposed to get the base out. Israel's pathetic candidate in CA-31, Pete Aguilar, preaches Chained CPI and other Republican anti-family austerity measures; perfect Steve Israel candidate. Most of his candidates are "mystery meat" nothings who are hiding from the issues and refusing the give voters any reason to bother turning out at the polls. That said, NY Times reporter John Harwood published a disturbing look at the midterms last night: Democrats Scramble to Stave Off Midterm Disaster.

In 2012, exit polls showed, Mr. Obama won a second term by rolling up margins of 11 percentage points among women, 24 percentage points among voters ages 18 to 24, and 87 percentage points among blacks. Over the last four midterm elections, turnout by all three groups fell more from the previous presidential race than turnout by Republican-leaning men, whites and those over 65.

Young voters have abandoned the midterm electorate at more than twice the rate of seniors. Hispanics, who favored Mr. Obama by a margin of 44 percentage points, have voted at just two-thirds the rate of whites. Unmarried women, the source of the Democratic advantage with women, vote less often than their married counterparts.

“I’m worried this could be a disaster,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster.

…With its sophisticated voter identification and mobilization programs, the 2012 Obama presidential campaign produced a more Democratic-leaning electorate than many Republicans had thought possible. In 2014 battlegrounds like North Carolina and Colorado, vulnerable Senate Democratic incumbents hope to capitalize on the results of those efforts the way Terry McAuliffe did in winning the Virginia governorship last year.

But “just because they find these people doesn’t mean they have a message that will work” to turn them out, said Zac Moffatt, a Republican strategist who was an aide to Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign. Mr. McAuliffe, for instance, had less success mobilizing young voters than he did with African-Americans.

…[A] recent special House election underscored the Democrats’ turnout problem. The contested district, which includes much of St. Petersburg, has 2.4 percent more registered Republicans than Democrats. But Republicans outnumbered Democrats by eight percentage points among those who actually voted, early evidence that Republicans are more energized about November.

A message that will work? That's where Steve Israel's "mystery meat" strategy will prove that Nancy Pelosi's worst political decision of her career was in reappointing Israel after he lead House Democrats to failure last cycle while Obama won a healthy victory and while the DSCC won severe serious race it engaged in against far steeper odds than any of Israel's lame attempts to win back the House. November is going to be a disaster for Democrats, although there are opportunities for progressives to advance despite Israel. Helping candidates like Stanley Chang (HI-01), Paul Clements (MI-06), Patrick Hope (VA-08), Daylin Leach (PA-13), Pat Murphy (IA-01), Eloise Reyes (CA-31), Lee Rogers (CA-25), Michael Wager (OH-14), Kelly Westlund (WI-07) and Rob Zerban (WI-01) will help establish a progressive beach head inside Congress when Israel is gone from the DCCC in 2016 and Democrats do take back the House. You can help all these candidates here. Let's do what Steve Israel is incapable of doing by taking a long-term strategic approach.

Is There A Remedy For The Dysfunction Of American Politics?

Financiers of the far right's anti-democracy jihad: 2 Kochs

Elizabeth Drew, in a fascinating piece for the NY Review of Books, The Stranglehold on Our Politics, talks about the determinative properties of voter turnout in midterm elections. Normally turnout sinks from between 51.7 to 61.6% for presidential elections into the high 30s for midterms. When the Democrats took back the House and Senate from the GOP in 2006, they managed to turn out a whopping 40.4%. The GOP learned a lesson and, with the help of right-wing billionaires and their zombie Tea Party brigades turned out 41.6% to rout House Democrats. (Important to note: while the GOP was turning out their forces at unprecedented rates, discouraged and disappointed Democrats were staying away from the polls rather than vote for Blue Dogs, New Dems and other Republican-lite candidates. This is the dynamic Steve Israel and the DCCC is setting up for the 2014 midterms again.)

The midterms, with their lower turnout, reward intensity. In 2010, the Republicans were sufficiently worked up about the new health care law and an old standby, “government spending,” particularly the stimulus bill, to drive them to the polls in far larger numbers than the Democrats. A slight upward tick in turnout numbers can have a disproportionate impact in Congress and many of the states, and therefore the country as a whole. The difference in turnout caused such a change in 2010; in fact, the Republicans gained sixty-three House seats and took control of both the governorships and the legislatures in twelve states; the Democrats ended up with control of the fewest state legislative bodies since 1946. The midterms go a long way toward explaining the dismaying spectacle in Washington today. State elections bear much of the responsibility for the near paralysis in Congress thus far this year and the extremism that has gripped the House Republicans and is oozing over into the Senate.

The difference in the turnouts for presidential and midterm elections means that there are now almost two different electorates. Typically, the midterm electorate is skewed toward the white and elderly. In 2010 the youth vote dropped a full 60 percent from 2008. Those who are disappointed with the president they helped elect two years earlier and decide to stay home have the same effect on an election as those who vote for the opposition candidate.

Little wonder, then, that there can be such a gulf between the president and Congress, particularly the House of Representatives-- but also between the president and the governments of most of the twenty-four states over which the Republicans now maintain complete control; almost half of these were elected in 2010. Democrats have complete control over fourteen states. The Republican-controlled states include almost all the most populous ones outside of New York and California. Since the midterms of 2010 the Republicans in most of these states have pursued coordinated, highly regressive economic policies and a harsh social agenda. Thus, while there’s largely been stalemate in Washington, sweeping social and economic changes that are entirely at odds with how the country voted in the last presidential election have been taking place in Republican-controlled states.

As a result of the relative lack of interest in state elections, we now have the most polarized political system in modern American history. It’s also the least functional. Many state governments’ policies are not just almost completely divorced from what is going on at the federal level-- but also in some cases what is prescribed by law and the Constitution. Systemic factors based in state politics explain more about our national political condition than tired arguments in Washington over who is at fault for what does or doesn’t-- mainly doesn’t-- happen at the federal level. The dysfunction begins in the states.

...[W]hile Obama won 51.1 percent of the popular vote in 2012, as a result of the redistricting following 2010 the Republican House majority represents 47.5 percent as opposed to 48.8 percent for the Democrats, or a minority of the voters for the House in 2012. Take the example of the Ohio election: Obama won the state with 51 percent of the vote, but because of redistricting, its House delegation is 75 percent Republican and 25 percent Democratic.

The state government’s power over the redrawing of congressional districts every ten years is probably the single most determining factor of our political situation. It’s clear that the Republicans were successful in winning and using the 2010 elections as a prelude to the most distorted and partisan redistricting in modern times.

...[But] when the Republicans began their intense effort in the run-up to 2010 to take over state legislatures and draw districts free of serious Democratic challengers, they failed to anticipate that this would leave their members more vulnerable to challenges from the right. The fear of being defeated in local contests by even more radical Republicans has also taken hold in the state legislatures, which in turn affects the nature of the House. The more established House Republicans, including the leaders, now live in terror of a putsch from the most extreme right-wing elements of their caucus, in particular the Tea Party. They are not yet a majority of the party but they have the power to behave like one through their use of fear. A lamentable result of the effort to draw safe districts is that only an estimated thirty-five House seats out of 435 will actually be competitive in the 2014 election. Therein lies the source of the near paralysis of the federal government.

Nate Silver wrote in the the New York Times after the 2012 election that while there had been earlier periods of great partisanship, in particular between 1880 and 1920, “it is not clear that there have been other periods when individual members of the House had so little to deter them from highly partisan behavior.” Under these circumstances, it’s harder than ever before to put together bipartisan coalitions to pass major legislation, as had long been done for civil rights bills and other major changes in economic, social, and even environmental policy. The fact that Obama had to pass the health care law with almost no Republican support rendered it more vulnerable later. The Republicans’ limp and deceptive explanation for their opposition to the law is that the Democrats left them out of consideration of the bill (which was actually based on Republican ideas).

The Republicans who took over the states following the 2010 elections arrived with an agenda strongly based on model laws supplied by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), heavily funded by the Koch brothers along with some other big corporations. The other group that benefited most from the 2010 elections was the passionately anti-abortion Christian right-- which is not only an essential part of the national Republican Party’s base but also dominates the Republican Party in about twenty states, and has a substantial influence in more than a dozen other state parties. The Christian right is tremendously effective in motivating its followers to go to the polls-- and then threaten a loss of support if their agenda isn’t adopted.

The overall result of the new Republican domination has been that these states have cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations and moved toward a more comprehensive sales tax; slashed unemployment benefits; cut money for education and various public services; and sought to break the remaining power of the unions. Not only did Republican officials in these states manipulate the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in their effort to win the presidency in 2012 and preserve their own power by keeping Democratic supporters from voting, but they are at it again. The constitutional right to abortion granted under Roe v. Wade has been flouted. The new strategy among anti-abortion forces is to limit legal abortions to the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. Several states have adopted this measure and others are in the process of doing so.

Pregnant women’s privacy has also been invaded through state measures requiring them to be subjected to transvaginal ultrasound examinations of the fetus, and forcing them to look at or hear described the result of any sonogram. Doctors have been ordered by state law to lie to women about supposed dire consequences of abortion, for example that abortions can lead to breast cancer. Abortion clinics in some states have been shut down or eliminated. Funding for other medical services for women, such as mammograms, has also been greatly reduced. Many of these state laws are under legal challenge and some of them may end up in the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade may be doomed.

...In 2014, thirty-six governorships, an unusually large number, will be up for election, including in such important swing states in presidential elections as Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Until 2010, all of them but Florida were governed by Democrats and carried by Obama, but since then they have been governed by Republicans determined to impose highly conservative policies on previously Democratic states carried by Obama.

Who controls the country’s statehouses can matter a lot in presidential elections. For one thing, that’s where the rules and conditions for voting are set. In 2012 we saw the Republican governor of Florida and the attorney general of Ohio cut the number of polling places and the number of days and hours they were open in an obvious effort to limit the votes of blacks and other minorities, as well as poor seniors.

Though great numbers of voters rose up and insisted on casting their ballots, it’s still the case that large numbers-- estimated at a minimum at hundreds of thousands-- were prevented from voting. And in a close election a governor can be of significant aid to the national candidate: the state’s party machinery and the governor’s political network can be called on to help out. The ultimate example of how helpful a governor can be was provided by Jeb Bush in Florida in 2000.

...[I]n their zeal to eliminate a law that’s been passed and is on the books [the Affordable Care Act], congressional Republicans may have built their own trap. Whatever they do in the name of getting rid of the program or cutting it back is attacked by the most militant Republicans as insufficient; there’s always a more drastic proposal, and a demand from the base that they support it. A recent idea-- backed by Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Mike Lee-- was that the government be shut down unless “Obamacare” is defunded. But some senior Republicans with memories of the calamity to their party caused by the Newt Gingrich–led shutdown in 1995–1996, as well as governors with national ambitions, were outspoken in calling this a stupid idea. Cruz, at the center of the effort, showed in his first weeks in the Senate that he’s not above McCarthyite tactics (as in the Hagel hearings); and he freely breaks the rules and understandings by which the Senate functions at all. Most uncommonly, he is actually hated and feared by most of his colleagues (including Republicans)—such strong feelings about a fellow senator are rare. The Harvard Law graduate and able advocate before the Supreme Court dismissed his senior Republicans’ concerns and in his mellifluous tone said that they were misreading history, and he carried on a crusade for a shutdown, which few of his colleagues liked.

But the ruffian Cruz overstepped and made a big mistake. As he traveled around with DeMint, he aroused great cheers from crowds at town meetings in August—but his colleagues held firm; no additional sponsors of the shutdown proposal came forth. Beyond that, Cruz and DeMint threatened Senate Republicans-- true conservatives such as Tom Coburn and Lindsay Graham-- who refused to back the shutdown with primary challenges. (Cruz is far more intelligent than DeMint but in defying the leaders of his party he is following his own agenda.) The base doesn’t mind if he’s unpopular in Washington, though.

Struggling once more to convince his far-right caucus members to take a less self-damaging route than the shutdown, the beleaguered Speaker John Boehner suggested that instead of shutting down the government unless Obamacare is defunded or postponed—anything to keep it from going into effect by the 2014 elections—they delay passing an increase in the debt ceiling. Holding up the debt ceiling in 2011 brought all kinds of obloquy down on the heads of the House Republicans and also stupidly hurt the credit standing of the US. Boehner has been leaping from ice floe to ice floe, each one more dangerous. So far his strategy of postponing calamity has worked—but what happens if he runs out of ice floes?

The agony of the current Republican Party is that most of the far right isn’t concerned about the possible effects of their tactics on the national party-- on its ability to win not just the next presidential election but also other offices down the line. The Tea Party members of Congress are responding to their districts. But the mainstream Republicans are panicked that they have lost four out of the last six presidential elections, and they have yet to figure out how to placate their base in the nomination process and still win the general election. But the far right has its own version of reality. Some even plan to run for president on it.

...Can this chokehold on our politics be broken? Several states are considering the possible removal of the power to control redistricting from the politicians who stand to benefit from their own decisions. Arizona and California have adopted independent commissions to redraw districts.

Theoretically, Congress could pass legislation requiring the states to reform their redistricting practices for federal elections; but that would require a sufficiently powerful movement-- of which there is no sign-- to put pressure on members of Congress to act against their own perceived interest.

The citizens of a state have it within their power to press for such changes in the nature of their state governments and the consequent effects on their immediate lives as well as the functioning of the nation’s political system. By rousing themselves to vote, they could have a stronger voice in filling state offices that may not seem so exciting but are highly consequential. Is it possible that the off-year elections could be taken almost as seriously as the presidential ones? The radicalism of the right has become so extreme that it may have unintentionally provided an impetus in that direction.

In the end only the members of the electorate can restore the institutions and procedures that make our democratic system work, starting with the next chance they get.

And speaking of "the next chance they get." October 15 is the date of the Massachusetts primary special election to replace Ed Markey in the House. There are a bunch of garden variety hacks running and one-- just one-- real progressive leader, state Rep. Carl Sciortino. You can help his win this seat here and help the forces of reform get rolling towards a good midterm despite Steve Israel's incompetence at the DCCC.