Pages

Tuesday, November 05, 2019

Good Riddance To Rubbish Democrats! We're Better Off Without Them-- And We Do NOT Need Them


The screenshot above is from ProgressivePunch. It shows where the 9 worst Democrats meet a bunch of Republicans who sometimes stand up to Trump. The worst of the Democrats-- Blue Dogs Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Joe Cunningham (SC), Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Kendra Horn (OK) vote far more frequently with the GOP than with the Democrats on crucial roll calls. These Democrats muck up the party brand and always drag the congressional party right-ward. Brindisi particularly is like a whiny 8 year old always bitching how progressive votes will lose him his seat and that if he votes against them, Democrats in his district will turn on him but that if he votes for them, conservatives in his district will vote against him. Let's face it; we would all be better off without Anthony Brindisi. And without Van Drew, Cunningham and Horn to boot. They are a detriment, not an asset, in Congress.

Yesterday, NBC News focused on Cunningham, who represents a red South Carolina district which includes much of Charleston. He won it last year when the GOP kicked out Mark Sanford in a primary and replaced him with a deranged Trumpist Cunningham managed to beat 145,455 (50.7%) to 141,473 (49.3%). Although Cunningham came close in Dorchester and Berkeley counties, his victory was all about winning Charleston County (which is where the Democrats live). This cycle there are at least half a dozen Republicans competing to take him on. Last cycle he outspent Republican Katherine Arrington $2,388,237 to $1,563,050 and so far this cycle his has outraged his perspective Republican opponents: Only 5 have raised any money so far:
Joe Cunningham (D)- $1,770,525
Nancy Mace (R)- $487,199
Katherine Landing (R)- $352,833 (79% self-funded)
Mike Covert (R)- $146,733
Chris Cox (R)- $89,735
Phil Norris (R)- $28 (100% self-funded)
What NBC News wanted to know is how worried Cunningham should be? After all, Obama lost the district twice, and althoughTrump didn't do as well as either McCain or Romney, he still beat Hillary 53.5% to 40.4%. And, it was his opposition to Sanford that lost the former governor and incumbent congressman his reelection. Reporter Lauren Egan wrote that Cunningham is counting on the "all politics is local adage" still being true in the Age of Trump. When Cunningham reluctantly voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry at the last minute-- after opposing it for months-- he said, "Today’s vote is not a vote on impeachment. It is not even a vote to approve of the impeachment inquiry. And as I’ve stated multiple times over and over again, I have yet to make up my mind about impeachment."
[N]ational Republicans are wagering that the House inquiry, which is likely to force Cunningham to cast a public “yes” or “no” vote on whether to impeach Trump, could cost him his re-election.

“The Democrats’ obsession with impeaching and removing President Trump from office will cost Joe Cunningham his seat in November,” said Camille Gallo, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a statement to NBC News.

Political strategists on both sides of the aisle say Trump-district Democrats like Cunningham have a delicate balance to strike. On one hand, he risks turning off a liberal base that is itching to see Trump go down. On the other hand, if he comes across as overly enthusiastic about impeaching the president, he could alienate some independent and Republican voters who were critical to his winning coalition in 2018.


Cunningham needs to get Democrats out to the polls in record numbers and persuade Independents to vote for him. He doesn't need Republican votes. NBC should know better. Besides, most voters in the district told NBC that impeachment isn't a big issue for them-- at least not yet. They're more interested in how Cunningham voted on the minimum wage-- against it-- than on the impeachment inquiry.

A right-wing website, the American Spectator-- on the other hand, sees impeachment as defeating Cunningham and many of the other congressmembers from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. David Catron predicts that a vote to impeach will cost them their seats. He points out that the Republicans need only flip 19 seats to win back the majority. He left out one word: net-- they need to win a net of 19 seats. A more likely outcome is that they win 5 or 6 Trump districts and lose 40 others. Bad net for them.

He focused on 7 seats-- a stretch:
Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-SC): In 2018, Cunningham beat a weak opponent by fewer than 4,000 votes in South Carolina’s 1st District. During his campaign, and until just recently, he spoke of impeachment in the following terms: “I’ve warned members of my own party that a partisan rush to impeach the president would be bad for the country.” Last Tuesday, however, he announced that he would vote for the resolution. Like most of these faux moderates, he will tell his constituents that Thursday’s vote merely affirmed an ongoing investigation. This will not mollify the voters to whom he so brazenly lied. In a district that the president won by 13 points in 2016, Congressman Cunningham is a dead Democrat walking.

Rep. Max Rose (D-NY): Rose defeated Republican Dan Donovan in 2018 in New York City’s last Republican stronghold, the 11th District. Like Cunningham, he told his constituents he was against impeachment. In fact, he wrote an op-ed that included the following denunciation of any such course of action: “Impeachment will not improve the lives of the hardworking Staten Islanders and South Brooklynites that I fight for every day.” But Congressman Rose had an impeachment epiphany after he arrived in Washington. The president won NY-11 by 10 points in 2016. With Trump at the top of the ticket again in 2020, plus a strong Republican opponent backed by the NRCC, Representative Rose is very likely a goner.

Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK): Horn narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Steve Russell in Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District, a major upset in a state dominated by the GOP. Her margin was painfully thin, and her victory was no doubt facilitated by her alleged opposition to impeachment. As recently as a month ago, she was still trying to have it both ways when talking to her constituents: “While I didn’t support an impeachment inquiry, I certainly know that these are serious allegations that have to be investigated.” Yet when Thursday arrived and she had the opportunity to keep her promise or cave to political pressure, she opted to betray the voters who elected her. Rep. Horn won her seat by a mere 1.4 percent in a district Trump carried by 14 points in 2016. She’ll be history after 2020.



Xochitl Torres Small (D-NM): Torres Small is yet another candidate who ran in 2018 as a different kind of Democrat and eked out a narrow victory over Republican Yvette Herrell in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District. Small did suggest a creative way to dodge the resolution: “The president’s conversation with the Ukrainian president must be investigated.… Designating this as an impeachment inquiry, though, has led some in the public to believe that a conclusion has been reached while … facts are still being gathered.” Yet she kept her toe on the party line during Thursday’s vote. Torres Small won her House seat by 1.8 percent in a district Trump won by 10 points. She should update her résumé.

Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-NY): Brindisi defeated Republican Claudia Tenney to win New York’s 22nd District and has always claimed to be averse to impeachment. After the fabled phone call between presidents Trump and Zelensky, however, his position began to evolve: “The thought that any government official, especially our commander-in-chief, would hold up foreign aid to an ally and suggest they investigate a political opponent, is a grave and troubling accusation. It is clear that this administration needs to provide answers.” Inevitably, he voted for Thursday’s resolution. In 2018 Brindisi won by less than two points in a district President Trump won by more than 15 points. He’ll be crushed in 2020.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA): In 2018, Cartwright fought off a challenge by Republican John Chrin in Pennsylvania’s 8th District. Cartwright has, unlike the other alleged moderates, not been coy about his support for impeachment. As early as September, he was pretty much committed: “We need to get to the bottom of these serious allegations through comprehensive impeachment proceedings.” The overall ideological bent of Cartwright’s district is difficult to gauge because it was redrawn in 2018 by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania pursuant to a gerrymandering lawsuit. It is, however, located in a part of the state that the president won by double digits in 2016. Cartwright probably won’t survive 2020.

Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME): Golden represents Maine’s 2nd District, despite his failure to win the most votes on Election Day in 2018. Pursuant to Maine’s ranked-choice voting, he was declared the “winner” several days after the polls closed. He has temporized on the impeachment resolution for some time, but finally caved to pressure from his caucus the day before the vote: “While I disagreed with the initial decision to open the impeachment inquiry, it is clear that the investigation has confirmed information contained in the whistleblower complaint.” Trump won Maine’s 2nd District by more than 10 points in 2018, so it’s a pretty good bet that Golden will be departing the House after the 2020 election.

In addition to all these “moderate” Democrats ensconced in districts where President Trump won by double digits, a number occupy districts that he won by more than six points: Rep. Ben McAdams (D-UT) won Utah’s 4th District by 694 votes in 2018. Trump carried UT-4 by seven points in 2016. Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-NY) eked out a victory in his first attempt at New York’s 19th District in 2018. Trump carried NY-19 by seven points in 2016. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) narrowly won her first term in Michigan’s 8th District in 2018. Trump won MI-8 by seven points in 2016. Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ) won New Jersey’s 3rd District by 1.3 points in 2018. President Trump carried NJ-3 by more than six points in 2016.

And the beat goes on. In addition to the 12 listed above, there are 18 more Democrats clinging to districts that Trump won in 2016. That brings the total to 30. As noted above, the Republicans need to flip slightly more than half of these to retake the House. Moreover, the GOP is awash in campaign cash. As Open Secrets reports, “RNC continues to dwarf DNC in fundraising.” This means that the GOP project of retaking the House will enjoy three major advantages-- a target-rich environment, the ability to fund any campaign that shows real promise, and the moral high ground associated with defeating an attempt to oust a president whose faults just do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

All of this brings us back to Thursday’s hyper-partisan vote and the resolution that purports to lay out the framework for the next phase of the “impeachment inquiry” launched by fiat during a news conference last month. This resolution, departing from 150 years of historical precedent, endows the House Intelligence Committee with extraordinary power over the inquiry, codifies Adam Schiff’s closed-door hearings, severely limits the powers of the Republican minority, and violates the president’s right to due process. The Democrats whose districts were won by Trump in 2016 have signed their own political death warrants by voting for this tawdry resolution. Execution day will be November 3, 2020.
Goal ThermometerMatt Cartwright looks safe-- as do Slotkin, Delgado, Rose and Golden. Catron makes himself look like a fool and a party tool by writing that "Cartwright probably won’t survive 2020." It's wishful GOP thinking, not anything related to actual reality. Cartwright is well-liked and respected by his constituents. Last year the GOP put up a self-funding bankster, John Chrin, and Cartwright beat him 135,603 (54.6%) to 112,563 (45.4%) inside the new district boundaries. Cartwright raised $2,396,418 while Chrin wrote himself a check for $1,687,182-- 74% of the total $2,276,322 he spent trying to unseat Cartwright. The NRCC put another $625,778 used to smear Cartwright and it didn't do a bit of good. So far this cycle, no Republican has raised a dime against Cartwright and no serious candidate has stepped forward. Cartwright has $1,047,665 in his campaign war-chest. The idiot Catron should run. Meanwhile, though, please consider contributing to Cartwright's campaign by clicking on the worthy incumbents thermometer on the right. He's the only one of the Trump district Democrats we're helping raise money for and he's the only one of them with a progressive voting record.


9 comments:

  1. Anonymous6:14 AM

    yes... absolutely... replace all of them with better democraps.

    Pelosi will be speaker and will unilaterally (well, she does listen to her corporate and billionaire sponsors) dictate policy and nothing will change.

    but voters in 9 districts will feel all giddy that they ... helped?

    ReplyDelete
  2. ap2156:20 AM

    Let Brindisi & Rose lose they're total frauds anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8:20 AM

    @6:14 am

    Making the world a better place... one comment (on someone else's blog) at a time. Any sign that DWT!'s writers pay the least bit of attention to you? Nope. Keep up the good work though.

    Odd contradiction: though completely lacking a sense of humor, you are HILARIOUS.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:37 AM

    Young Turks presented a video in which Pelosi's obstruction of Medicare For All is the topic. Their read of Pelosi supports 6:14.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous10:47 AM

    In a pathetic sort of way, every time 8:20 flinches at something I offer, I know I'm correct.

    Didn't know about turks, but they tend to be more-or-less objective. But it's not a difficult thing to observe.

    AOC and the squad and Jayapal (and just a few others in the house) have been talking about MFA (and GND too), some of them for years. But the silence in the house democrap caucus under Pelosi has been deafening.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:07 AM

    @10:47 am

    no, your stuff does not make me or anyone else "flinch' - but your monumental self-regard both sickens and amuses me. do you EVER read the garbage you write? you act as though you're on some important mission when what you're doing is POSTING COMMENTS ON SOMEONE ELSE'S BLOG. holy fuck. you don't even have enough basic chutzpah to start your own fucking blog! you are the human equivalent of a fucking remora fish, you idiot. god almighty, what a fucking pathetic loser you are.

    try to wait a few minutes before replying to this, so as to at least create the illusion that you have some sort of a life other than haunting this blog and posting variants of the same comment over and over.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:31 AM

    11:07 should get a life and go live it, for nothing sentient is ever offered for consideration. Ad hominem attacks don't count.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous8:46 PM

    Put the mirror down and get back to work. Your boss isn't paying you to be an ID10T on his dime. And you might want to read your own commentary for the evidence that you are the problem and not me and my cohort.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous6:13 AM

    cohorts.

    ReplyDelete