"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis
Monday, November 11, 2019
Chuck Schumer Is Already Weeping Over The Loss Of Peter King
>
Early this morning, Peter King-- first elected to Congress from the south shore of Long Island in 1992-- announced, on his Facebook page, that he won't be running for reelection. The announcement didn't say anything you wouldn't expect from a lock-step Trump enabler. Even though he sits on the Intelligence Committee and is well aware of how guilty Trump is, he announced in his statement that "In the coming weeks and during the next year I intend to vote against President Trump ‘s impeachment and will support the President’s bid for re-election." Many people first heard of his decision via a tweet (above) from Little Chuckie Schmucky. Not familiar with Schmucky? Maybe this little tune will help:
NY-02 shouldn't have been a Republican district all these years. Although Hillary stunk it up with her status quo bullshit agenda, Obama won it both times he ran and the PVI hovered around neutral. After Hillary's dismal showing-- she lost by almost 10 points-- 53.0% to 43.9%, the PVI is now officially R+3. The district won't perform that way with King out of the way. I spoke with the head of the Suffolk County legislature, DuWayne, a former King opponent who has endorsed Gordon. He told me he expects her to win the district, explaining that it was the bipartisan old boys network that kept King in power. Before this morning's announcement, there were two Democrats running, establishment fave Babylon town concilmember Jackie Gordon (endorsed by EMILY's List and DCCC scam operation End Citizen's United) and local activist Mike Sax. She's already raised $187,941 but I wouldn't be surprised if other potential candidates jump into the race now. In 2018 King was forced to spend $3,175,639 to hold onto his seat. His progressive opponent, Liuba Grechen Shirley, spent $1,948,325. Although both Kirsten Gillibrand and Andrew Cuomo won the district, King was reelected, albeit more narrowly than in previous elections-- 128,078 (53.1%) to 113,074 (46.9%), losing the larger Suffolk County part of the district (D+3) while winning his Nassau home base which performed for him at an R+27 level. For years, the Long Island political class assumed that his daughter, Erin Sweeney, top Republican on the Hempstead town council, would inherit the congressional seat. But she decided to move to Charlotte, North Carolina and didn't run for reelection. John Wagner noted in his report for the Washington Post that the 75 year old King is the 20th GOP congressman to bow out of reelection. "King joins a growing number of Republican members of Congress who have announced retirements, resigned or said they will seek another office next year... By comparison, eight Democrats have announced they will not seek reelection."
Even before King announced he was bowing out of Congress, NBC News ran a piece early this morning about how the GOP has lost 100 members since Trump arrived in DC. "Change is a way of life in Washington," reported Dante Chinni. "Politicians come and go at the whims of voters. But even by D.C. standards, House Republicans have seen massive changes during President Donald Trump's administration. This week, as the House impeachment proceedings become public, those changes are going to be front and center. When Trump arrived in the White House in 2017, there were 241 Republicans at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the House of Representatives. Today, 100 of them have gone or have announced that they are leaving. That's 41 percent of that original 241 in the 115th House... not congressional seats lost; that's a measure of actual people, the personalities that once roamed the halls of Congress that aren't there anymore. They left for a range of reasons. Some left to take administration appointments, some lost, and some just walked away."
While much is made of partisan flips-- and they are obviously crucial in terms of who controls the House and the Senate-- Congress is ultimately a collection of people, and personalities matter. Personalities frame debates and set up how committees are run. And the House's GOP personalities will define the larger Republican Party when impeachment moves from private to public hearings this week. The change in the House GOP over the last three years has been especially striking. Compare it to changes in the Democratic House in the same time period under President Barack Obama from January 2009 to November 2011. ...A good number of changes in the Republican House, 36 of them, came through election defeats. But overall, the departures are being driven more heavily by retirements and resignations. Half the Republican House turnover has come via voluntary exit-- 50 departures. And there was a lot of experience on that list. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan, a 10-term veteran, bowed out on his own. And 10 other Republican members who had served at least four terms in the House retired with their seats remaining Republican. That is, they were not in real danger of losing-- they just walked away and let different people take the reins. And more departures are likely on the way. We are heading into the holidays and the new year, always a prime time for members to announce that they are not seeking reelection. Keep these changes in mind this week when the House impeachment trial becomes a public affair. There has been a lot of turnover in the House in the past few years, and not just in terms of partisanship. The president's own party in the chamber looks very different from when he arrived in Washington. The House Republicans have less institutional memory and more new faces than they did a few years ago-- and those new faces have come to Congress in Trump's Washington. That's likely to have some impact when temperatures and rhetoric rise around impeachment.
Three memorable quotes by Peter King, the right-wing asshole Schumer said he will miss and whose friendship he will always value:
• Just after Michael Jackson's death: "Let's knock out the psychobabble. He was a pervert, a child molester, he was a pedophile. And to be giving this much coverage to him, day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country? I just think we're too politically correct. No one wants to stand up and say we don't need Michael Jackson. He died, he had some talent, fine. There's men and women dying every day in Afghanistan. Let's give them the credit they deserve... I believe I'm articulating the views of a great majority of the American people." • On the Occupy Wall Street movement: "We have to be careful not to allow this to get any legitimacy. I'm taking this seriously in that I'm old enough to remember what happened in the 1960s when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy. We can't allow that to happen." • After the police murdered Eric Garner: "If he had not had asthma, and a heart condition, and was so obese, almost definitely he would not have died from this."
King was a repulsive racist and an all around bigot. Right after the Orlando shooting in a gay club, he termed it a "vicious Islamic terrorist attack" on his Facebook page and said that "the Islamic threat to the United States is greater than at any time since 9/11" and excoriated "leftwing editors at the New York Times and the "liberal ideologies" of the ACLU, stating that both the newspaper and organization were attempting to "intimidate" critics of Islam. He also helped lead the charge against football players peacefully protesting discrimination by kneeling during the national anthem, likening their protest to "Nazi salutes." That's who Peter King-- a corrupt bag of shit-- is. I'm sure he and Schumer will sson meet again in Hell.
Barton left because of sex molestation charges, Walden just wants to get away from Trump
Greg Walden isn't really a nut; he's a mainstream conservative who has risen high in the ranks of the House GOP. And he announced yesterday that he's retiring from Congress next year.-- the 19th House Republican who is looking forward to not having Trump in their lives. He's Oregon's only Republican federal official. It's almost as though when they drew the Oregon districts, they shoveled all the Republicans into his. Oregon is a very blue state. Obama won it both times and even as weak a candidate as Hillary won the state 1,002,106 (50.07%0 to 782,403 (39.9%). The last time a Republican won the state was when Reagan beat Mondale in 1984. But OR-02, Walden's district, is very different. the state PVI is D+5 but the district PVI is R+11. It's primarily rural and the only cities, Medford and Bend, are both Democratic towns. There are 20 counties. Republicans are vulnerable in the biggest and second biggest, Jackson and Deschutes counties and in a few smaller blue counties like Hood River and maybe Wasco in a good year. Bernie won every single one of the 20 counties-- from most populated to least populated:
But watch Blue Dog imbecile Cheri Bustos try to recruit some conservative like herself and saddle the Democrats with a worthless Blue Dog, which, of course, will dampen the enthusiasm of base voters. Just watch; it's the only game the DCCC knows how to play... which is why they lose so much.
Walden is 62, not exactly retirement age in Congress. He was first elected in 1998. He was chair of the NRCC for the 2012 and 2014 cycles and then rewarded with the ranking slot at the Energy and Commerce Committee, a cash cow for unethical members. All of his reelection battles were won with between 74 and 69% until last year when he had a slight scare, winning with just 56.3%, a startling 14 point drop, that can be attributed to Trump. Jamie McLeod-Skinner took 145,298 votes (39.4%) to his 207,597 (56.3%). It was the best any Democrat had done in OR-02 in contemporary history. She was outspent $1,309,788 to $4,876,725, the DCCC ignoring the race. She's running again this cycle, as are two other (unknown) Democrats, John Holm and Raj Mason, neither of whom has raised any money. Walden told Politico that he's closing the public service chapter of his life and won't run for any other offices. "Based on recent polling, strong fundraising, and the backing of my wife and family, I am confident I could earn the support of 2nd District voters for another term. I’m also optimistic that a path exists for Republicans to recapture a majority in the House, and that I could return for two more years as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. But I also know that for me, the time has come to pursue new challenges and opportunities."
Walden, a former chief of the House GOP’s campaign arm who earned a reputation for party loyalty over his past two decades in Congress, has been quietly picking and choosing his battles with Trump this year, fueling speculation he might be eyeing the exits. The Oregon Republican rebuked the president over the hugely controversial border wall project, backed Russia sanctions over Trump's objection, voted with Democrats to end the historic 35-day government shutdown and has been vocal about addressing climate change. But Walden also has stood by Trump throughout the Ukraine scandal and fallen in line on other key issues. Walden is the fourth House GOP committee leader to call it quits this cycle. That list includes Reps. Mike Conaway (Texas), ranking member on the Agriculture Committee; Rob Bishop (Utah), ranking member on the Natural Resources Committee; and Mac Thornberry (Texas), ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. ...Before wielding the Energy and Commerce gavel, Walden spent years chairing the panel’s telecommunications subcommittee that oversees the Federal Communications Commission. He helped advance major legislation in that position, including a 2012 law that created the public safety communications network known as FirstNet and other measures aimed at fighting illegal robocalls, expanding broadband and freeing up airwaves to be used in 5G wireless networks.
Ted Lieu (D-CA) has nothing against Walden, bears him no ill-will and wishes him well in the next chapter of his life. But he did mention to me today that "Rep Walden would become Chair of the immensely powerful Energy and Commerce Committee if Republicans flip the House next term. Instead, he chose to retire. We can all draw the inference that Rep Walden understands the GOP House Caucus is on the wrong side of history."
There seem to be so many Republican members of Congress announcing that they're not running next year-- and some in districts that Democrats can win. Yesterday Kenny Marchant, a conservative Republican who represents a district north of Dallas, said he's had enough. He's the 4th Republican from Texas to tell the NRCC that he's not running again. Candace Valenzuela, his progressive opponent, said that "Marchant, who coasted to victory eight straight times before 2018, is calling it quits because he knows he can’t win again... Beto O’Rourke won this district when he ran for Senate in 2018. It’s a suburban district, like many of the seats Democrats won last cycle. It’s also a majority-minority district." Who'll be next? Yesterday, the NY Times said they expect it will be Michigan's Fred Upton. Others expect to see John Katko bail from his Syracuse-based seat. His opponent, progressive Democrat Dana Balter, is too busy campaigning for the issues that motivate her run, to pay much attention to what Katko is doing. "Enough with medical bankruptcies," she told me today. "Enough with parents not taking their children to the doctor because they are uninsured. Enough with people dying because they have to ration their insulin. No one should have to choose between buying food and buying medicine. Yet many of our neighbors are forced to make that choice every day. We know how to fix this problem and it's long past time. Let's transition from our very broken healthcare system to Medicare-for-all." So what's holding that up? What hold everything up? Conservatives. Conservatives-- of both parties-- held up Medicare from being enacted from 1915 'til 1965 (after the LBJ/Goldwater Democratic landslide wiped out the conservatives' grip on Congress). Today the same evil shit-eating conservatives-- whether Mitch McConnell or Status Quo Joe Biden-- are preventing Medicare-For-All from moving forward. We may be too late to save much of the worse from the ravages of Climate Change. Why? Conservatives? Again, not just McConnell, but Biden and the Blue Dogs as well. Look at the U.S. senators who have endorsed Biden-- Doug Jones (AL), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Tom Carper (DE), Chris Coons (DE) and Bob Casey (PA), 5 conservative Democrats who oppose Medicare-For-All and the Green New Deal. Sure, Republicans are worse, or, better put, even worse. Conservatives are screwing up the world. The French had the right idea of how to deal with them as part of their Revolution... until it got out of hand. Be honest-- how angry would you be if you saw Trump and his family-- not Barron-- marched up to the guillotine? Would you watch it on TV? Would you cry tears of joy? Many would not... to put it mildly. And not just GOP base fascists and racists. One of the foremost thought-leaders among non-commercial American evangelicals, Samir Selmanović, wrote "American Evangelical leaders are making an indelible impact on Christian history. They are also affecting countless individual lives, especially those who have been a part of Evangelical churches. The movement is now redefining Jesus from a symbol of love, wisdom, and humility into a dramatically different symbol which stands for gun rights, prosperity theology, anti-science, defunding/diminishing/blaming of the government, a hysterical sense of victimhood while being in charge, and fierce nationalism-- all of that in this life-- and then sending everyone else to hell in the next.
The good part of Good News (Evangelion) is gone. The news part of Good News is gone. Evangelicalism is now offering to the world something that is neither good nor new. Something, deep inside, is shifting. I know, I entered it at the expense of estranging my Muslim father, Roman Catholic mother, and atheist friends, ending up living without a home for two years in my late teens. I had also become an ordained pastor within it and have baptized hundreds. This moment in church history will be in future textbooks. It is a turning point for many who have been following Jesus and are now dumbfounded with the apparent Evangelical inability to love all people, believe in God, and serve something larger their own tribes. Tribe members are awakening and opting to take their faith further and leave behind what used to be good and new, but no longer is. Evangelical political dogmas, isolated and ingrown communities, and cultures of churches (tiny or mega), fundraising-driven theologies and moral outrages, and exhausting (never spoken but always nurtured) guilt and fear. The New Exodus is beginning, quietly and unstoppably, like tectonic plates deep below. People are still coming to sit at worship, be with friends at church baseball games or Christian badass youth concerts, look for a date, or simply hang out in the church's lobby cafes away from the too complicated world. But something broke and is now dying. First to leave are people's discerning hearts, almost imperceptibly, quietly. Minds then follow hearts. New thoughts begin to open the doors at the edges. And soon, people will be ready to follow Jesus further and leave with their feet. Reality will win. Jesus never invited them saying "Here is Christianity, join it." He said, "Here is the Kingdom/Commonwealth of God (Reality), enter it. And as they step into the world, a joyous surprise is awaiting them. They are finding Jesus there, in the world that God loves so much, alive and well, Jesus everywhere, and busy! Among all people! I need a cleansing experience and a celebration of a new beginning. I wish we could set up baptismal pools on the streets and baptize people out of Christianity. I would like to go first. When you baptize me, you can say "I baptize you out of Christianity. Welcome to the world!" Then you immerse me and wash me, give me dry and colorful clothes, and then we dance together on the public square along with all the loving people there. Whaddya think? Please, somebody, baptize me!
3 Republicans Just Announced They're Retiring From Congress But Just One Of The Districts Is Even Remotely Winnable
>
There was no Blue Wave in 2018-- the Democrats were basically offering runny gruel. Instead there was a massive anti-Trump/anti-red wave. Unless the Democrats wind up nominating Bernie-- better yet Bernie + Elizabeth Warren-- there will be no Blue Wave in 2020 either. Even if the Democrats nominate the worst possible candidate-- Status Quo Joe, setting up the contest between 2 profoundly evil evils that Trump is so eager for-- there will still be another massive, perhaps more massive, anti-Trump/anti-red wave, a true tsunami this time. The GOP explains what happened last cycle not in terms of waves or Trump's toxicity, but whines how there were too many retirements for them to deal with. There's some truth to that, but a better way too look at the retirements is to understand how Trump's toxicity helped bring many of those retirements on. Look at the 2018 cycle like this:
• Turnout was the highest for a midterm election in more than a century (1914), with over half the electorate casting ballots. • The Democrats won/Republicans lost the popular vote 60,572,245 (53.4%) to 50,861,970 (44.8%)-- a margin of 8.6%, the largest margin on record for a House majority party switch • The Republicans lost 42 or 43 seats (NC-09, nearly a year later is still undecided after the GOP was caught trying to steal the election), their biggest loss since Nixon was thrown out of office after Watergate • Republicans lost a net of 7 seats in California, 4 seats in Pennsylvania and 4 in New Jersey, 3 each in New York and Virginia, 2 each in Iowa, Florida, Texas, Michigan, Illinois and one seat in Utah, New Mexico, Washington, Kansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Colorado. • 13 Republicans retired or left the House to run for other offices in districts that were subsequently won by Democrats
But however the NRCC wants to paint it, 30 Republican incumbents were beaten by Democrats, while not one single Democratic incumbent was beaten by a Republican. Yes, the fact that Dave Trott (MI), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Charlie Dent (PA), Dave Reichert (WA), Ed Royce (CA), Darrell Issa (CA), Frank LoBiondo INJ), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), Pat Meehan (PA), Steve Pearce (NM), Martha McSally (AZ), Ryan Costello (PA) and Mark Sanford (SC) left open seats that Democrats won was a very big deal, but
a- many of them retired because they knew they had next to zero chance to be reelected; and b-it doesn't explain the 30 incumbents who lost.
Now GOP retirement season has kicked off with a bang. Last week alone, 3 Republicans announced their premature retirements, at least 2 of whom would certainly have been reelected.Five Republicans-- Bradley Byrne (AL), Rob Woodall (GA), Susan Brooks (IN), Greg Gianforte (MT) and Rob Bishop (UT)-- had already beaten them to the punch. Paul Mitchell, basically can't stand Trump and what he's done to American politics. So, after just 2 terms, he's retiring from Congress. He didn't blame Trump per se; he blamed the "rhetoric and vitriol" in DC. Before Congress, Mitchell had been a very right-wing member of the Michigan state legislature. MI-10, north of Detroit, is a thumb-like protrusion into Lake Huron. About half the voters come from the northern part of suburban Macomb County. The county used to be the bluest suburban county in America. In 2016, it was the Trumpiest county in Michigan. The PVI is R+13 and although Obama almost won in 2008 (50-48%), Trump beat Hillary 63.8% to 31.6%. (Bernie won the district in the primary and beat Hillary in 5 of the 6 counties, and essentially tying her in the 6th.) There are at least 8 Republicans talking about jumping into the race. The only Democrat running so far is Kelly Noland, an Army veteran and a nurse who supports Medicare-for-All-- which means the DCCC will likely recruit someone to run against her. As of the June 30 FEC reporting deadline Mitchell had raised only $232,501, and Noland hasn't raised the $5,000 that would have triggered a report. Friday Martha Roby announced she's had enough of Congress. AL-02 is another prohibitively red district, gerrymandered so that as many African Americans living in Montgomery are dumped into AL-07 (Alabama's one black district). The PVI is R+16 and Trump's 64.9% of the district's vote was stronger than either McCain's or Romney's. The anti-red wave barely lapped around the edges of the district last year. Incumbent Martha Roby was reelected 138,879 (61.5%) to 86,931 (38.5%). Although Roby lost Montgomery County, the biggest in the district, and two tiny rural counties, Conecuh and Bullock, she won the 12 other counties in the district-- massively (except by Barbour, which she won by the skin of her teeth). Roby was no fan of Trump's and didn't vote for him in 2016. After the Access Hollywood pussy-grabbing escapade was revealed, she said, "Trump’s behavior makes him unacceptable as a candidate for president, and I won’t vote for him." His fans refused to vote for her in 2016 but they were back in the saddle last year after she showed them that she was basically another garden variety Trump enabler. Alabama is likely to lose a seat after the 2020 election and AL-02 will surely be impacted. So far there are 4 Republicans talking about running: Bobby Bright, a former Blue Dog Democrat who took the logical step that all Blue Dogs eventually take and hopped the fence to become a fascist/Republican; crackpot state Senator Clyde Chambliss of Prattville; far right state Rep. Will Dismukes ad a lunatic fringe former state Rep, Barry Moore, who will fight anyone who claims he endorsed Trump before Moore did. Roby beat Moore and Bright in the 2018 primary. The third seat-- the one that the DCCC was already targeting-- is TX-22, from which Pete Olson announced his retirement on Thursday. Although an R+10 PVI normally looks like too steep a hill for a Democrat to climb, Hillary had improved on Obama's 2008 and 2012 score by around 8 points and the Houston suburb's hostility towards Trump was making the district competitive. When Olson was first elected the district was over 60% white. The demographic shift has been fast and now just 42.9% of his constituents are white. That made Olson's 96.2% Trump adhesion score problematic. Olson's win number last year was just 51.4%. He was forced to spend $1,921,992 (more than he raised) to hold onto his seat as newcomer Sri Kulkarni (D) threw $1,539,576 into his campaign. Neither the DCCC nor the NRCC spent any money in the district. This year it looked like a lot of money is being set aside for this district (by both party committees), which starts the suburbs south of Houston, includes Pearland and Alvin and then twists west to Sugar Land, Brazos Bend State Park, past Rosenberg and almost as far as East Bernard in Wharton County. Olson had already raised $635,183 and spent $221,320 this year and Kulkarni had raised $415,249 and spent nearly $100,000. Both Olson and Kulkarni have primary opponents. There are already half a dozen Republicans looking at the seat. Kulkarni and 2 other Democrats are already campaigning. Local KHOU confirmed that political insiders think TX-22 "could change parties... The traditionally conservative district has gotten a lot more competitive in recent years. Rep. Olson’s margin of victory dropped from just under 19 points in 2016 to within five points in 2018, the same year Fort Bend County went blue."
KHOU 11 political analyst Bob Stein said the best chance for a switch in party control is always an open seat. “My sense is (Rep. Olson) would have been ‘primaried,' ‘Tea-Partied,’” Stein said. “What you’re seeing here is really the last of the old guard. Pete Olson was not a strong conservative but held the line. His legislative record was modest.
Olson had already been on the 2020 DCCC retirement watch list-- as had been Rob Woodall (GA) and Susan Brooks (IN), each of whom has announced their retirements. Still left on their list:
• Don Young (AK) • David Schweikert (AZ) • Druncan Hunter (CA) • Ross Spano (FL) • Vern Buchanan (FL) • Fred Upton (MI) • Ann Wagner (MO) • Chris Smith (NJ) • Peter King (NY) • John Katko (NY) • Chris Collins (NY) • Steve Chabot (OH) • Mike McCaul (TX) • Kenny Marchant (TX) • John Carter (TX) • Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA)
Starting The Week With Another Republican Leaving Congress? I can't say I was ever a fan of Dan Coats, the conservative Indiana politician, but as a Director of National Intelligence, he was considerably better than what anyone has a right to expect from Trump. And Trump hates him and has been trying to get him to resign for months. By announcing he would be replacing him with congressional crackpot John Ratcliffe (R-TX), Trump gave him no choice. Yesterday Ratcliffe was on Fox with Maria Bartoromo to give Trump another public blow-job, this time barking that he trusts Barr to lock up Obama and Hillary-- though not naming them-- and any other Trump enemies. It will be a pleasure to have Ratcliffe out of Congress, but he represents one of the most backward districts in America, so don't expect the seat, TX-04, to flip blue. The PVI is R+28 and Trump beat Hillary 75.4% to 21.8%, her third worst performance in Texas. The godforsaken district is in the northeast corner of the state, tucked in between Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and Louie Gohmert's district. It's a real hellhole, 73% white, poorly educated (48% high school or less), 45% rural, fairly poor. Ratcliffe was elected with no opposition although in that district it's the primary that determines the member, not the general election. In 2014, he primaried Ralph Hall, the oldest member of Congress (91) and beat him in a runoff, in part by claiming that he would oppose reelecting Boehner speaker. He voted for Boehner anyway. Last year he had his first Democratic opponent, Catherine Krantz, who he beat 75.7% to 23.0%. Ratcliffe raised $1,072,295 to Krantz's $29,171. Bowie, Camp, Cass, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Grayson, Hopkins, Hunt, Lamar, Marion, Morris, Rains, Red River, Rockwall, and Titus counties along with areas of Collin and Upshur counties make up the district. None of them offer Democrats even a whiff of a hope to build a base. The least Republican county is tiny Morris where the PVI is "only" 42%. So far no one has mentioned running against Ratcliffe. Here's Trump's favorite Republican questioning Mueller:
Hispanic Voters Could Be A Strong Part Of The Democratic Coalition... With Some Real Work
>
Latino Decisions surveyed Latino registered voters in Florida, Arizona and Nevada for a new memo released by Priorities USA this week. They will likely be an Anti-Trump bulwark in all three states, but could provide the Democrats with a much bigger share of the votes, if the Democratic Party were to magically come alive and start acting something like a political party. As Bob Dylan said, decades ago when he looked into the future and saw the way Pelosi, Hoyer and Schumer would be running the Democratic Party: "He not busy being born is busy dying." In many places the Democrats haven't done enough to bring Hispanics into the party. There're still, for example, congressional districts with huge Hispanic pluralities-- even majorities-- with Republican congress members. Republican Will Hurd represents a huge south Texas district where 70% of the population is Hispanic. Last year the Democrats nominated a non-Hispanic candidate (with a Hispanic name) and she lost, so the DCCC is trying to fix the primary so they can run her again this cycle. The DCCC has never run a serious campaign against Mario Diaz Balart, whose south Florida district is 71% Latinx, Devin Nunes (CA- 47% Latinx), Paul Cook (CA-39% Latinx) or Dan Newhouse (WA-38% Latinx). Last year none of them had serious candidates with serious DCCC support. So far this year, it looks like mastermind Cheri Bustos is planning a redux. Diaz-Balart has no announced opponent. The DCCC recruited another sure loser, Phil Arballo, against Nunes. They are ignoring Cook's and Newhouse's districts again. Newhouse has no opponent at all and Cook's opponent, Chris Bubser, is running on a cut and paste DCCC platform that won't, move any needles for anyone.
Diaz-Balart con Don the Con-- shouldn't this be a kiss of death?
The report begins with a ritual statement about how "Latino voters will make up an increasing share of the electorate in 2020" and then warns that "while they predominantly support Democrats over Trump, there is a significant amount of work to be done. Health care and immigration are the top issues for Latino voters in Florida, Arizona and Nevada, but Democrats must conduct significant outreach to engage voters on the specifics of Trump’s policies to fully take advantage of the salience of the messages available to us, particularly on economic issues. While views on the strength of the economy are generally positive, a majority of voters surveyed in all three states said they do not believe they benefit personally from Trump’s economic policies. Trump’s immigration policies are deeply unpopular with the Latino communities in these states, and can be seen as emblematic of his larger racist and divisive message that, not surprisingly, is toxic with Latino voters." In other words Democratic Party "support is somewhat soft, with one-third falling into the lean or undecided categories... [M]ost are hesitant to say they would consider supporting Trump [but] those that do feel that protecting jobs and the economy are the top reasons they might consider voting for him."
While the effectiveness of health care and other economic messages are similarly strong among Latino voters as across all battleground voters, it is a strategic imperative to make the messaging and creative culturally competent and relatable to the diversity of experiences within the Latino community. ...Cuban origin voters in Florida are a consistent outlier, the only Trump-friendly segment: 43% certain Trump, and 11% lean Trump. Still, 41% of Cubans in Florida are planning to vote for the Democrat in 2020, and another 5% are undecided. ...Message testing [across all 3 states] found that protecting Medicare and Social Security were especially important and motivating across all states and population segments, as were other messages that focused on economic issues. ...It is imperative that Democrats do not allow Trump to continue to define his record on economic issues without holding him accountable for policies that have hurt many working and middle-class Latinos financially. Even among these Democratic-leaning voters, there is a perception that the economy is moving in the right direction (60% in Florida, 50% in Nevada, and 41% in Arizona), and Trump gets stronger approval on his handling of the economy (58% approve in Florida, 43% in Nevada, and 35% in Arizona) relative to his overall approval. Those favorable impressions are important to note because protecting American jobs and overseeing a successful economy are the most compelling reason these voters would consider supporting Trump. This is especially true for Latinos in Florida (50%), Nevada (40%), and persuasion voters (50% in Florida, and 43% in Arizona and Nevada).
Despite these openings for Trump, the majority do not believe his economic or tax policies provide any personal benefit: 59% in Florida, 67% in Arizona, 60% in Nevada, and 61% of persuasion voters in all three states said they did not benefit at all from Trump’s economic policies. They sense they are left out of the economic growth taking place in the country. They’ve heard that Trump’s tax cuts benefited the already wealthy and corporations (52% Florida, 63% Arizona, 61% Nevada) and that he uses his office to enrich himself and his friends. It is also true that generic economic performance measures have little traction relative to more day-to-day personal finance/economic realities. At rates of 70% and above, Latino voters tell us that wages not keeping up with the cost of living is more important to them than stock market performance or job indicators. Concerns about health care are largely tied to economic concerns. The top cited personal economic concern that Latino voters “worry about a lot” is out-of-pocket health care costs. In Florida and Arizona, 45% worry a lot about prescription drug costs too. The rising costs of health care have made other personal expenses more difficult to manage (saving for retirement, paying for education, etc). Other health care-adjacent issues also pose significant worry, including ability to handle an emergency expense and keeping up with basic expenses. And, as noted at the outset, the most motivating message was the appeal to protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Democrats must ensure that Latino voters are hearing about Trump’s disastrous health care record, especially through paid media. Only 49% in Florida (51% among Florida persuadables) have heard that the changes to the health care system Trump will advance could cause millions to lose coverage and end protections for preexisting conditions. The rates are higher in Arizona (59%) and Nevada (56%), and with persuasion voters in the West (56% Arizona and Nevada persuadables). More awareness on this issue could pay off significantly given the importance of health care costs, and their responsiveness to messaging on it.
Among Latino registered voters in Arizona, 77% are certain or leaning towards voting Democratic. That number is 71% in Nevada. But just 57% in electoral vote-rich Florida, primarily because of weak numbers among Cuban-Americans (41% certain or lean Democratic and 54% certain or lean Trump). This ad that started running today looks like it would be helpful:
Older Hispanic voters tend to be among the most patriotic voters in America. The survey shows they respond strongly-- negatively-- to Trump's authoritarian nature. The OpEd yesterday by John Podesta in the Washington Post, The Mueller Report Paints The Most Unpatriotic Portrayal Of A Presidential Candidate-- Ever might be a good one to translate and circulate widely in Latinx communities.
The raw partisan divide cleaving America and constantly worsened by President Trump is almost certain to be on full display Wednesday, when Robert S. Mueller III appears on Capitol Hill. The House Judiciary Committee, followed by the House Intelligence Committee, will hear Mueller’s testimony about the findings in his special counsel report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Committee members on both sides of the aisle will have to contend with an inescapable conclusion from a fair reading of the report: The Russian attack would not have worked-- and perhaps would have been over before it really got started-- if not for Donald Trump’s enthusiastic encouragement and amplification of it. While much will be made about the legal standard to prove specific conspiracies beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s clear that every step of the way, Russia was looking for green lights, and at every step of the way, the Trump campaign provided them. An unequivocal bipartisan rejection of Russian outreach and attacks in 2016 might have left Russian President Vladimir Putin with no incentive to go forward. But, as the Mueller report shows, Trump encouraged the interference: The Trump campaign “welcomed” it and “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” Even beyond that, had both candidates and both parties agreed to banish from the campaign trail material illegally hacked by a foreign adversary, especially after its Russian origins were confirmed, coverage of and interest in the hacked material certainly would have taken on a different tenor. Instead, Trump himself mentioned “WikiLeaks” 164 times in the last month of the campaign, even after the U.S. intelligence community publicly identified the hacks and leaks as a Russian active-measures operation. All along, Trump deflected blame from Russia and excused the hacking, making a unified American response all but impossible. The Mueller report represents the most damning portrayal of unpatriotic behavior ever compiled about an American candidate for president-- and only then does it go on to detail a shocking pattern of obstruction of justice that more than a thousand former prosecutors say would have led to the indictment of anybody not holding the office of the president. While this full accounting of the past is important, the most profound urgency of the Mueller report and his testimony concerns the present and the future. Just a few weeks ago, at the Group of 20 meeting in Osaka, Japan, the world watched as Trump joked about Putin’s attack on American democracy, mock-scolding the Russian leader not to do it again. It was the sort of display that has become familiar, going back to 2015, when Trump appeared to excuse the murder of journalists critical of the Putin regime (“Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too”). Then there was Trump’s humiliating joint news conference with Putin in Helsinki in 2018 that left even his most reliable defenders disgusted. When Trump said last month that if a foreign government offered dirt on his 2020 opponent he would “take it,” that was a green light for Putin and other potential malefactors. Yet only weeks earlier, the president’s own Pentagon leadership had approved for public release a sobering report, “Russian Strategic Intentions,” that amounts to a postscript to the Mueller report. In what can only be read as a scathing indictment of Trump’s behavior over the past three years, the report condemns “the unwillingness of Western experts and governments to confront the ideological-- as well as political and military-- aspects of our rivalry with Putinism.” The report also says that “Putin’s worldview is zero-sum, so it’s hard to imagine a win-win scenario. For Putin to win-- to look ‘great,’ the U.S. has to lose.” Putin himself confirmed that outlook in his own words last month, crowing in an interview with the Financial Times that Western democracy has become “obsolete” and “outlived its purpose.” Putin’s actions in 2016, exposed in great detail by the Mueller report and the indictments of Russian operatives, were an attack on American democracy-- and not just in the sense that Russia’s illegal hacking of Trump’s opponents and social media disinformation campaign were meant to alter the outcome. They were an attack on democracy as a concept, an attempt to destroy the American public’s faith in fair elections that had served, on the world stage, as an implicit rebuke to Putin’s autocratic rule. That attack is not over. In April, Trump’s FBI director, Christopher A. Wray , described Russian cyber-aggression as “not just in an election cycle threat. It is pretty much a 365 day a year threat.” That’s why Mueller’s testimony is so vital. He can provide guidance on how Russia operates and how to prevent further attacks. But Americans must face the truth: Trump, in broad daylight, has encouraged the destruction of the nation’s fundamental democratic institutions, and he continues to do so.
EXTRA: Another Republican Congressman Bites The Dust Pete Olson announced his retirement this afternoon. His district-- TX-22-- was an already targeted seat. Although the DCCC foolishly ignored it in 2018, Hillary had improved on Obama's performance by almost 8 points. Trump beat her 52.1% to 44.2%. Last year, the Houston suburbs were unexpectedly unfriendly towards Trump and the GOP and Olson's share of the vote fell, especially in Fort Bend and Harris counties. The R+10 district had been consistently delivering him wins in the mid- to high 60s. And then 2018 and the anti-Trump wave appeared. Olson still won but with just 51.4% of the vote. This used to be a very white district. When Olson was first elected, the population was a bit over 60% white and about 20% of the residents were Latino. Now the district is much more diverse-- and the kind of majority minority district Republicans are finding it harder and harder to win in:
So, suddenly Olson's 97% Trump adhesion score was an albatross around his neck. He was forced to spend $1,921,992 (more than he raised) to hold onto his seat as newcomer Sri Kulkarni (D) threw $1,539,576 into his campaign. Neither the DCCC nor the NRCC spent any money in the district. This year it looked like a lot of money is being set aside for this district (by both party committees), which starts the suburbs south of Houston, includes Pearland and Alvin and then twists west to Sugar Land, Brazos Bend State Park, past Rosenberg and almost as far as East Bernard in Wharton County. Olson had already raised $635,183 and spent $221,320 this year and Kulkarni had raised $415,249 and spent nearly $100,000. Both Olson and Kulkarni have primary opponents.
With Susan Brooks Suddenly Retiring, Is IN-05 Seriously Winnable?
>
IN-05 is a red (R+9) central Indiana congressional district north of Indianapolis. If the Republicans can't win here, they'll have to pack their bags and move to Russia. Except for the slice of Marion County (Indianapolis) in the district, every county is deep red. Last year incumbent congresswoman Susan Brooks was reelected 180,035 (56.8%) to 137,142 (43.2%), safe... but her worst showing ever. In 2016 Trump won the district 53.1% to 41.3%. He isn't especially popular there but Hillary was completely wrong for the district. Bernie beat her, heavily in the primary. Brooks was first elected in 2012, replacing far right crackpot Dan Burton. She won with 73% and was reelected with 65% in 2014 and 62% in 2016. Yesterday she suddenly announced that she's not running again next year-- and the DCCC is already targeting the district. This came as a big shock for McCarthy, since Brooks is the head of recruitment for the NRCC. She's member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a plum assignment that has helped her raise lots of money she didn't need for reelection campaigns and could use for ladder climbing inside the party. Last cycle, she raised $1,909,690 and ended the campaign with $864,926 on hand. Brooks is considered a mainstream Republican-- as is the largely suburban district-- and she gets primaries from the right. This cycle, ex-state Senator Mike Delph, a homophobic psychopath and vicious racist, who was defeated last year for reelection by openly gay Democrat J.D. Ford, was already challenging her. Two Democrats are also contesting the seat, anti-Choice Democrat Jennifer Christie and former state Rep. Christina Hale. Brooks, who has been an advocate for recruiting more women to run for Congress, will stay on as NRCC recruitment chair for the rest of the cycle. She says that without having to worry about her own reelection, can can be more useful at the NRCC.
For 2020, Democrats had put Brooks on their “retirement watch list.” They see her district, which includes the wealthy northern Indianapolis suburban areas, as potentially flippable as Republican support has eroded in some suburban areas under President Donald Trump. But Brooks insists Indiana’s 5th District, which she carried by nearly 14 points as Republicans lost the House in November, will remain in GOP hands with or without her. So is she leaving because it’s no fun being in the minority? Brooks points to legislation she’s been working on with Democrats, including a bill reauthorizing funding for health emergency programs that is awaiting the president’s signature. Is she frustrated with the party’s support for female candidates after voters sent the lowest number of GOP women to the House in a quarter-century? Brooks said she feels good about the ongoing efforts to change that. Is she dissatisfied with the leader of the party? Brooks said she has a "fine relationship" with Trump and an “outstanding relationship” with Vice President Mike Pence-- her former law school classmate. “Indiana is going to be very strong for the president and vice president in the 2020 cycle,” she said.
I guess that depends who the Democrats nominate-- a lesser of two evils kind of candidate or someone offering Indianans something worth fighting for. That goes for a presidential candidate and, of course, for the candidate who will try to win Brooks' seat. If Cheri Bustos decides to put up a Republican-lite candidate, it's not likely the Democrats will take the district. After all, there is a reason why Bernie bested Hillary among the voters there in 2016.
Saturday Max Boot played Captain Obvious in a Washington Post OpEd, Trump is drowning in scandal. He can’t focus on Syria. Is that lucky for us? For the Syrians? Like many of us, the bombing raid on Syria is seen strictly as a Wag The Dog moment the regime decided toes if they could pull off.
It tells you something about the chaos engulfing the Trump administration that the U.S. airstrikes on Syria had to jostle for public attention with the voluminous news of the president’s scandals. Friday began with President Trump labeling his former FBI director “an untruthful slime ball.” He was responding to James B. Comey’s new book, which calls Trump an “unethical” man “untethered to truth.” Such invective, both from and against a former FBI director, is unprecedented. But then it’s also groundbreaking for a former FBI director to say, as he did in an interview released Friday: “I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It’s possible, but I don’t know.” The purported “pee tape” Comey was referencing is an unconfirmed portion of the “Steele dossier” on links between Trump and the Kremlin. The dossier-- a summary of intelligence gathered by former British spy Christopher Steele for Trump opponents, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign-- received some further validation Friday from a McClatchy report that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has evidence that Trump’s private lawyer, Michael Cohen, visited the Czech Republic in the summer of 2016, just as Steele had indicated. Cohen has strongly denied he made the trip. Friday also brought news that Cohen is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for a litany of offenses. That same day, the deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee resigned after the disclosure that he had paid $1.6 million in hush money to a former mistress, a Playboy playmate, whom he had impregnated. The broker of the hush money was none other than Cohen. Later Friday, the Justice Department’s inspector general released a scathing report about Comey’s former No. 2, Andrew McCabe. Trump, who knows a thing or two about lying, crowed “He LIED! LIED! LIED!” and blamed the “made up” collusion probe on a “den of thieves and lowlifes” at the FBI-- which reports to him. It is hard to imagine how Trump can do his job-- for example, approving military strikes on Syria-- while drowning in this rising tide of scandal. There is an old tradition, more honored in theory than fact, that issues of national security are kept separate from domestic politics, but Trump is utterly incapable of making any such distinction. For him, everything is political-- and all politics is personal. Last Monday, while Trump was meeting with his generals and Cabinet members to plot strategy against Syria, he got sidetracked with a disturbing tirade against the FBI and the Justice Department for raiding Cohen’s office-- which he called a “real disgrace” and an “attack on what we all stand for.” The new national security adviser, John Bolton, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat ashen-faced as Trump unloaded on the career professionals of the Justice Department and FBI who, just like the armed forces, are pledged to defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Yet somehow dispassionate foreign policy analysts are supposed to put all this to the side and comment on the Syria strikes as if they were being undertaken by a president in his right mind. Okay, I’ll play along, if only briefly. The airstrikes were the bare minimum that the United States could do to punish Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad for his use of chemical weapons. But it’s unlikely that they will dissuade him from future atrocities, any more than the previous “pinprick” airstrike in April 2017 did. Trump, who is oblivious to history and irony, actually boasted “Mission Accomplished!” But that triumphalist claim is even less likely to be vindicated than it was when President George W. Bush spoke beneath a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner on an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003. Just as Bush had no Iraq plan in the spring of 2003, so today Trump has no Syria plan. In all likelihood, he will resume pressuring the Pentagon to withdraw U.S. troops, thus abandoning our Kurdish allies and handing a major victory to Assad and his Iranian and Russian backers. But it’s hard to imagine that Trump, who in the best of times has the attention span of a hyperactive 8-year-old, can focus on strategy for Syria amid the far more pressing threats that he faces from an ever-expanding criminal investigation. If the United States had a parliamentary government, Congress could pass a motion of “no confidence,” thus allowing Trump to devote 100 percent of his attention to fighting the multiplying charges against him without the distractions of running the government. Instead, we must hope that the institutions of the U.S. government are strong enough to function more or less on autopilot while Trump is consumed by the wages of his own sins.
Boot doesn't get into what this is going to mean for candidates in the quickly approaching midterm elections. Democrats are counting on it meaning exactly what Trump's behavior has meant for candidates in the string of special elections that have seen mammoth swings away from the GOP. Oklahoma, one of the reddest states in America, has had 8 special elections since Trump occupied the White House. The average swing towards Democratic candidates has been 32 points. Another very red state, Missouri has had 9 special elections-- resulting in a 17.9 swing towards the Democrats. South Carolina has similar results-- 7 special elections and an average swing of 17.6 towards the Democrats. How about in a purple state? New Hampshire had 11 special elections and the average swing towards the Democrats has been 17.7 points. Another purple state, Iowa, was had 4 special elections-- with a 26.2% swing towards the Dems. Before Gov. Scott Walker announced he was suspending special elections-- since overturned by the judiciary-- Wisconsin had had 2 specials and the average swing away from the GOP was an astronomical 27.2 points. Yesterday NBC News and the Wall Street Journal released a poll that shows why: Democratic enthusiasm... and lack of enthusiam from the GOP. Last Tuesday, Florida's 31st state Senate district had a special election to fill a very blue seat and everyone expected the Democrat to win. But it was much worse for the GOP than anyone expected. Democratic voter enthusiasm was sky high, while GOP desire to get to the polls flagged. The Palm Beach County special saw Democrat Lori Berman crush Republican Tami Donnally by a massive 74.8% to 25.2%, the highest share of the vote received by any Florida Democrat in at least a decade. The swing away from Trump in the 2016 presidential vote was very significant. In 2016 Hillary beat Trump 61.38% to 36.31%. Trump lost the 31st by around 25 points but onTuesday Donnally, the vice chair of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, lost by nearly 50%. Now that's a swing that screams "blue wave!" Donnally, in a prelude to November: "I’m disappointed more Republicans didn’t come out to vote. And I don’t know why."
The poll shows that the enthusiam gap Donnally was whining about is a nationwide gap-- "an advantage in intensity for Democrats." The poll shows a 7-point advantage for Democrats in congressional preference-- 47% of voters wanting a Democratic-controlled Congress and 40 % preferring a GOP-controlled Congress. That isn't such a big gap, but what is is the enthusiasm gap-- 66% of Democrats expressing a high level of interest (either a “9” or “10” on a 10-point scale) in November’s elections, versus 49% for Republicans. And among these high-interest voters, Democrats lead Republicans in congressional preference by 21 points, 57% to 36%. That's the death knell for Republicans in swing districts. That this election is going to be a referendum on Trump, as it has been in special elections, is going to be catastrophic for Republican candidates, even well-funded incumbents. 40% of poll respondents said their November votes will be a message that more Democrats are needed to check and balance Trump and his enablers in the Republican-controlled Congress. (28% said that more Republicans are needed to help Trump pass his agenda.) Among independents who are registered to vote 27% wanted to send a message that checks and balances to Trump and congressional Republicans will help them decide how to vote, while among that same group, just 14% said they want Republicans to win so that they can help Trump and GOP leaders pass the Republican agenda. This isn't going to matter in districts with overwhelming Republican majorities where the GOP doesn't need independent voters, like AL-04 (where Trump beat Hillary 80.4% to 17.4%), FL-01 (where Trump beat Hillary 67.5% to 28.2%), GA-09 (where Trump beat Hillary 77.8% to 19.3%), GA-14 (where Trump beat Hillary 75.0% to 22.1%), KY-05 (where Trump beat Hillary 79.6% to 17.5%), NE-03 (where Trump beat Hillary 74.9% to 20.0%), OK-03 (where Trump beat Hillary 73.6% to 20.9%), TN-01 (where Trump beat Hillary 76.7% to 19.7%) or TX-13 (where Trump beat Hillary 79.9% to 16.9%). In districts where independent voters decide elections though, Republicans are going to be wiped out. That's why so many Republicans, from Paul Ryan (WI-01), Darrell Issa (CA-49), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11) and Lamar Smith (TX-21) to Ryan Costello (PA-06), Pat Meehan (PA-07). Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27) and Dave Trott (MI-11) are dropping out and retiring early. Expect more to follow.
Another Republican Congressman Bites The Dust-- Is Ryan Costello The First NRA Parkland Casualty?
>
Paul Ryan's toxicity would have sunk Ryan Costello
When Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ungerrymandered the state's congressional districts, it looked like curtains for Ryan Costello. His weirdly drawn district (PA-06) went from an R+2 PVI (a swing district that would be very difficult to hold in a wave election) to a more compact district with the same number (PA-06) but very different political boundaries and a D+2 PVI. In 2016 it went very narrowly for Clinton (one point). Under these new boundaries, which now include bright blue Reading, it would have gone to her by 9 points. Costello served on the Chester County Board of Commissioners before being elected to Congress in 2014 when Republican Jim Gerlach retired. He's considered a mainstream conservative but, coupled with the new district lines, his "A" rating from the NRA and the disdain for Trump and Paul Ryan in his district made his reelection look very sketchy for 2018. Costello's been whining about the unfairness of the judges who ungerrymandered the state and has encouraged the state legislature of impeach them. Last week he filed the necessary petitions to get on the ballot in November but 3 days later City&State Pennsylvania broke the news that Costello is retiring from Congress, the 39th GOP House member to flee the Trumpified party.
Despite filing petitions on Tuesday to run for another term, four Republican sources said Costello indicated at a recent meeting with state and local GOP officials that he intends to drop out of the race in the weeks before the May Primary. The sources all spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitive nature of the meeting. Costello reportedly met with state party chair Val DiGiorgio, former 6th District Congressman Jim Gerlach and several other top Republicans early Friday. According to sources, he indicated that he intended to seek a job in the private sector rather than face a costly reelection fight. ...Some had speculated that Costello would drop out after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the GOP challenge to the state’s new congressional districts. Many observers say the new Sixth District, in the highly competitive Philadelphia suburbs, is even more favorable for Democratic candidates-- last month, Costello called for the impeachment of the state Supreme Court Justices involved in that decision. A bruising Republican loss in this month’s PA-18 special election also sent shockwaves across the national GOP landscape and is generally seen as an ill omen for upcoming midterms across the country. If true, Costello’s decision not to run would put suburban Republicans in a tight spot. Despite his apparent vulnerability, local party leadership are short on alternative candidates with strong name recognition. Recently, county-level Republicans told reporters they were still scouting possible replacement candidates. But as the petition deadline passed, only local lawyer Greg McCauley had filed signatures to run as a Republican.
The DCCC and EMILY's List manufactured a candidate in their factory at 430 S. Capitol St. for the race last year, Chrissy Houlahan, who-- despite running a company that manufactured shoes in a Chinese sweatshop, is a shoe-in for Congress now. This morning, in fact, Roll Call changed their November rating of the PA-06 race from Tilts Democratic to Likely Democratic.
Remember, the Lake Research poll of 30 swing districts (including PA-06) from last week found that Democrats currently lead by 11 points on the generic ballot for Congress, with Democrats receiving 46% of the vote, Republicans receiving 35%, and 17% undecided. There is a clear enthusiasm gap, with 38% of voters strongly supporting the Democratic candidate but only 27% of voters saying the same for the Republican candidate. Trump is deeply unpopular in these districts, with just 36% of voters rating him as doing an excellent or good job, compared with 64% of voters who give him a just fair or poor rating.
And although Ryan Costello is a complete rubber stamp for Paul Ryan, he got some especially troubling news when his constituents were polled about their feelings for Paul Ryan last December. PA-06 voters-- the old redder PA-06-- were among the most anti-Paul Ryan voters in any district held by a Republican across the country. At the time-- that's about 3 months ago-- Trump's disapproval in the district was 52%. Paul Ryan's disapproval was a startling 70%!
