The statements being made about Trump’s handling of the pandemic demand to be met with outrage

In a convention where a genuine fact might die of loneliness, the biggest lies are all about COVID-19. That’s quite a claim at an event where a parade of wealthy Republicans is taking the stand to claim different varieties of victimhood, and where speakers are painting a vision of what will happen when Trump departs the White House that would make Hieronymus Bosch run screaming. However, while lying about the economy is bad, and lying about Donald Trump being a “uniter” is simply ridiculous, lying about how we ended up as the worst of the worst when it comes to reacting to COVID-19 is dangerous.

It’s dangerous not just because Trump continues to promote quack “cures,” continues to override experts on both policy and treatment, and continues to undercut the need for action. It’s dangerous because the way the RNC is presenting Trump as someone who “understood the threat” while Democrats and the media “downplayed the danger” is such an obvious 180-degree inversion of reality that just presenting it displays an amazing contempt for facts, science, and history that isn’t even history yet. It’s not just that Donald Trump is covering up failure. He’s covering up genocide.

The chart at the top of this article hasn’t been updated in weeks, but it’s still a guide to some of the statements that Trump was making even as COVID-19 marched across the nation. Far from taking COVID-19 seriously, Trump was playing golf, making flu jokes with Sean Hannity, and generally basking in the warm afterglow of Republicans handing him a free pass by not calling so much as a single witness to his impeachment hearing.

It wasn’t until the near end of this chart that Trump showed up in the (then unmutilated) Rose Garden with an array of Big-Box CEOs to announce a national testing strategy that would involve tens of thousands of parking lot testing centers coordinated by a website to route patients and provide results. The website was a lie. Those centers never appeared. And it wasn’t until July that we learned that Trump killed the whole idea of having coordinated testing as attempted genocide against states governed by Democrats. Trump’s “political instincts” were that it was better to continue downplaying concerns about COVID-19, keep the federal government out of the testing business, and let citizens of Blue states simply die. Trump dumped the whole idea of launching a testing plan. 

It wasn’t difficult to see the impact that a national program of testing and case tracing could have. Not only did South Korea use that strategy to wrangle an early epidemic there into one of the great success stories of the pandemic, but even nations as hard hit as Italy were able to use testing in conjunction with a tough national lockdown to stop the virus in its tracks. At one point, Italy had far more cases and far more deaths than the United States. Now it has a fraction of either, and the rate of new cases there is lower than many individual states.

Donald Trump’s response to COVID-19 wasn’t just the worst on the planet. It wasn’t just malignant incompetence. It was intentionally bad. Trump did less than he could have done on purpose, in the hopes that he could make political gains by pointing fingers at Democratic governors as Americans died. And he did. Trump went to war with Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, refused to talk to him, failed to provide requested assistance, and saying “I want them to be appreciative” before providing any help. He did the same with attacks on Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. And on other Democratic governors who were complaining as Trump refused to start a testing program, refused to support a national lockdown, refused to centralize purchases of protective gear and medications, and actually confiscated materials purchased by blue states to send to his favored red states.

Trump’s handling of COVID-19 hasn’t been bungled or mishandled or poor. It’s been murder. It’s been deliberate. It’s been death-as-a-political-strategy. And now the Trump convention is running film clips from Thailand as part of a propaganda piece claiming it was Trump who took the virus seriously, Trump who took action, and Trump who whatever. 

This level of propaganda might not quite match that of the Nazis … but it’s getting damn close. Not only should Trump’s actions in canceling a national testing strategy be the subject of a second impeachment, they are crimes against humanity deserving of a trial before the world. That the media is sitting quietly by as Trump claims to be the hero of the crisis he created, should be the focus of outrage.

Republicans think 175,000 dead Americans is okay, and that’s not all

The sorry, sad state of the morally bankrupt Republican Party: 

57 percent of Republicans think 176,000 coronavirus deaths (and counting) is acceptable. Holy shit. pic.twitter.com/dd737aoOmj

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 23, 2020

By double-digit margins, Republicans think 175,000 Covid-related deaths (and counting) are “acceptable.” These are the same Republicans who now think that Russian meddling in our politics is okay, that “family values” was a cynical joke on our moral discourse, that “law and order” was something that mattered, that no one stood above the law, that leading the world in pursuit of shared democratic ideals is best replaced by boyish fandom of murderous despots, and that the entire purpose of the Republican Party is nothing more than the singular worship of their idiotic man-boy president. 

Oh, and the response to anything is whine, whine, whine:

.@GOPChairwoman responds to @CBSNewsPoll showing 57% of Republicans say the number of those dead from #COVID19 is acceptable at 175,000: "I think that is a really unfair poll..Republicans do not want to see people suffering from this pandemic." pic.twitter.com/E43B4p9rck

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) August 23, 2020

Republicans literally are okay with people suffering during this pandemic because they—like their dear leader—are utterly devoid of empathy for their fellow neighbors. It’s the reason so many still resist wearing face masks, putting everyone around them at risk. It’s the reason Republicans continue to support their president despite knowing what they know now, which is exactly what they knew then:

Ted Cruz knew. Rand Paul knew. Nikki Haley knew. Marco Rubio knew. Kellyanne Conway knew. Mike Pompeo knew. Glenn Beck knew. Rick Perry knew. Susan Collins knew. They all knew. pic.twitter.com/73XyJkiNkv

— act.tv (@actdottv) August 21, 2020

Nothing about Donald Trump has been a surprise. Everything that has happened was predictable. We didn’t know we’d suffer a global pandemic, but we knew Trump would be tested during his first term—every president is—and that he would fail spectacularly. 

What wasn’t predictable was how quickly his whole party would become as sociopathic as Trump himself, how quickly they’d acquiesce to his rampant lawlessness. The party that once went into hysterics because former President Bill Clinton had a quick chat on an airport runway with Attorney General Loretta Lynch is now silent as the curent attorney general acts as Trump’s private lawyer. The same party that went into hysterics and filed multiple lawsuits over former President Barack Obama’s executive orders now turns the other way as Trump escalates the same practice. 

And a whole party that once declared fealty to “law and order” is totally mum as Trump literally thumbs his nose at the Supreme Court. What army do they have, anyway? 

USCIS makes it official. They will ignore SCOTUS ruling and, "will reject all initial DACA requests from aliens who have never previously received DACA and return all fees." Furthermore, renewals will be limited to one year. https://t.co/RUIZ3LXw3n

— Ali Noorani (@anoorani) August 24, 2020

There is a single constitutional remedy for such defiance of our nation’s laws: impeachment. But Republicans decided that they were okay with Trump’s lawlessness, and he’s returned the favor by making an even greater mockery of the very institutions that make our democracy work. 

It turns out they're quite fragile, indeed. All it takes is one despot and an enabling party to watch those institutions crumble. Turns out, the only thing keeping them in place was a belief in our democratic system. Republicans don’t care for our system. Or democracy.

The “party of life” never was, but at least now everyone can stop pretending. Their opposition to abortion has nothing to do with “life,” and everything to do with controlling women. 

The “party of national security” is a laughable joke. Russia strongman Vladimir Putin pulls the strings. 

The party of “law and order”? Trump has literally argued that as president, he is above the law, and Republicans have been happy to play along. 

Tax cuts is all that’s left of what Republicanism was all about. The rich and powerful still get their payday. They always do. Nothing like global economic devastation to redistribute even more wealth to the top 0.01%. 

But the stuff that was supposed to trickle down to the masses? All of that is shredded, in tatters, as the Republican Party devolves into an outright cult of personality and Q-inspired conspiracy mongering. 

When Anti-Trump Neil Cavuto Tried To Use Democrat Talking Points Jim Jordan Wasn’t Having It

Fox News host Neil Cavuto and Republican Congressman Jim Jordan had an exchange on Friday that revealed how some members of the media seem to take Democrat talking points to heart more than they should.

And that member of the media in this case would be the anti-Trump Cavuto.

Cavuto Asks Jordan About Trump And USPS

Cavuto asked Jordan, “What did you make of what the Postmaster General was saying on the whole mail-in ballot issue. He says ‘Because I think the American public should be able to vote by mail.’ He says ‘we’ll deploy processes and procedures that advance any election mail, in some cases first class mail.”

“Do you think that adequately addresses the concerns some Democrats had and many in your own party, that he was sent there by the president to make that next to impossible?” Cavuto questioned.

RELATED: Al Gore: Trump’s Overhaul Of USPS Is The President “Putting His Knee On The Neck Of American Democracy”

Jordan replied, “Well the real concern is when you go with live ballots sent out to everyone as some states are doing that haven’t done this before. You need no better example than the sponsor of today’s legislation. The Chairwoman of the Oversight Committee, Carolyn Maloney, her election was on June 23rd but it took six weeks to determine who the winner was.”

“So that’s the concern the president has,” Jordan continued. “That’s the concern I have. That’s the concern I think lots of Americans have.”

“This is not about the postal service,” Jordan added. “This is about politics.”

 

Cavuto and Jordan further discussed the mail-in ballot issue, but Cavuto kept circling around and pressing the GOP congressman on the same Democratic talking point – that President Trump was somehow trying to sabotage the election by manipulating the postal service.

Cavuto Asks Again

Cavuto said, “Nevertheless Congressman, the president did say earlier this week that he opposed election aid for states and an emergency bailout for the postal service, citing among other things that it might restrict many Americans of their ability to vote by mail. but he also said that voting by mail, has repeatedly made the claim that mail-in ballots can lead to widespread fraud.”

“So do you believe this is as much about his trying to stymie the process than enhance it?”

“No, I think this is the Democrats playing politics,” Jordan replied, repeating himself, since apparently Cavuto didn’t take the hint the first time.

Jordan continued, “Neil, ask yourself this question and your viewers: Why are we voting on the bill today but not having the hearing on the legislation and hearing from the postmaster general until Monday? Normally it’s the other way around. Normally you want to get all the information from the person in charge, the Postmaster General.”

Jordan then went down the list of empty Democratic attacks on President Trump.

“First it was the Russia investigation,” Jordan said. “The first big committee hearing, this Congress? Michael Cohen, then he came in and lied seven times. Then it was the fake Ukraine impeachment.”

“Now this is just the latest effort of the Democrats to go after the president,” Jordan finished.

Cavuto Asks A Third Time

But Cavuto wasn’t finished.

The Fox news anchor pressed forward, “I understand where you’re coming from Congressman, but if you’re the President of the United States and you’ve long expressed reservations about an overwhelmed system dealing with what could be 100 million mail-in ballots. Do you think he would welcome cutting financing for the post office to make that next to impossible?”

“Of course not,” Jordan replied.

Cavuto added, “That’s what Democrats are charging. Is that not odd to you? Is it not odd?”

“It’s not true,” Jordan shot back. “No, it’s like so many things the Democrats have said. It’s not true.”

“I’ll tell you what is a concern,” Jordan said. “Do you really think if you mailed a ballot to every single voter 150 million ballots, do you really think we’d know the outcome and have all those ballots counted on election night? ”

And A Fourth Time…

But Cavuto STILL wasn’t done. So he rephrased the question.

To ask it a fourth time.

“No, I understand and maybe I wasn’t clear on my question, Congressman,” Cavuto said. “But the timing of cutting aid would actually fit in with that notion that it’s going to overwhelm the system, that we will, ahead of time, make things more difficult. That’s what Democrats are going to argue because of the coincidental timing.”

RELATED: Chris Wallace Suggests Trump May Have A Point About Mail-In Voting Fraud

Jordan was having none of it.

“But we aren’t cutting aid,” Jordan said. “The CARES Act that we passed clearly back in March, the first big stimulus to deal with the coronavirus situation had a $10 billion line of credit. They got $14 billion they’re sitting on and they are, as I said earlier, actually bringing in more money now than they were at this point last year.”

“So it’s just not based in reality, the Democrats’ claims,” Jordan finished.

Why Was Cavuto So Hung Up On This?

Cavuto’s question to Jordan was a fair one, even if the charge isn’t true, because it is in the news and part of our current national discussion.

But to ask the same question four times? Because maybe Cavuto didn’t like the answers he was getting?

And is it a journalist’s job to get the right answers – the truth – or only the kind of answers he or she likes?

Neil Cavuto should strive to be more fair and balanced.

The post When Anti-Trump Neil Cavuto Tried To Use Democrat Talking Points Jim Jordan Wasn’t Having It appeared first on The Political Insider.

The Trump onslaught begins—4 unadulterated days of brainwashing his cultists

Instead of waiting until his culminating nomination speech on Thursday to make a splash at the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump showed up Monday shortly after the convention's start to deliver a lie-laden rant lasting longer than his Democratic rival's 26-minute acceptance speech last week.

By conventional standards, Trump’s timing was a strategic error. The whole point is for the nominee to build anticipation throughout the week and then deliver a triumphant address on Thursday that draws in maximum viewership. "From a purely tactical perspective doesn’t every additional, unfocused Trump speech like this one in North Carolina, cheapen what his campaign would prefer to be the BIG SPEECH night on Thursday?" wrote NBC reporter Garrett Haake Monday as Trump was chipping away at objective reality from the podium. 

But that assumes Trump is running to win. In traditional U.S. presidential campaigns, major-party nominees generally start with base support of at least 40% and then they work toward winning over swing voters, independents, and perhaps a swath of disaffected members of the other party to reach 50 plus one on Election Day.

Not Donald Trump. As we have seen over and over again, Trump's campaign is much too incompetent and too disinterested to win over new voters. In reality, Trump is chiefly interested in cementing his base voters because his strategy is to lose by just a narrow enough margin to steal the election by claiming it was ridden with fraud.

Trump's strategic goals, therefore, don't rely on any buildup to Thursday. Rather, his strategy depends on saturating his cultists with propaganda that ensures they show up to vote and then automatically distrust any result that doesn't result in Trump's reelection. In other words, he's both brainwashing and preprogramming them.

On Monday, for instance, Trump fed his cultists patently false absolutism that if he lost reelection to Joe Biden, then the election was necessarily "rigged."

"The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election," Trump said. Never mind that Trump is losing in basically every reputable national poll along with most battleground state polls.

Trump also delivered a gusher of disinformation during his inaugural convention speech. "Most of the country is doing very very well," he claimed as reported U.S. deaths surpass at least 175,000 and total unemployment claims top 57 million. He told the crowd that Democratic governors were shutting down their states solely to hurt his reelection bid. He also mythologized that before the coronavirus "we were really coming together"—except for that whole impeachment proceeding over one of Trump's other attempts to steal the election.

This is a classic propaganda campaign designed to thoroughly brainwash his followers—the more they buy into his demented reality, the quicker they'll dismiss any fact-based reports that don't comport to Trump's fantasy world. In fact, that's why polling already shows that by a 3-to-1 margin Republican voters believe the battle against COVID-19 is "going well," while among all voters six in 10 say it is going "badly."

It's not the wow factor of a big speech that infects the minds of these GOP voters—it's the repetition, the bombardment, and the saturation that they succumb to, mostly because they need to believe in something. In deeply uncertain times, Trump offers them the “snake oil of certainty,” as Brené Brown calls it. 

And apparently, the media is going to fully help the campaign mainline Trump's disinformation straight to the public. After restricting Democrats to two hours of coverage a day during their convention, cable news outlets mostly took Trump's speech in full.

"I’m a little confused why Trump is being granted a full-day convention to just give a steam of consciousness rant of outright lies," wondered Jesse Lee, vice president of communications for the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

Meanwhile, before Trump even set foot on stage, he started dialing up his alternative reality wherein he's always being victimized and other people are always getting better treatment.

"Incredible that @CNN & MSDNC aren’t covering the Roll Call of States," Trump tweeted as both networks took part of the congressional hearing on U.S. Postal Service delays during the truly lackluster roll call. "Fake News! This is what the Republican Party is up against. Also, I’d like to hear the remarks of the Delegates from individual States, rather than @FoxNews anchors. Ridiculous!"

CNN and MSNBC ultimately both took major portions of Trump's speech, as did Fox News of course. So even as Trump complained about slighted, he actually got more than his fair share—all part of the brainwashing.

Republicans make it official with convention non-platform: They’re the Party of Trump

Last week, Democrats held a remarkably successful remote convention, showcasing the fights for racial justice, health care, and human decency. Coming up this week, the Republican National Convention will confirm that the Republican Party is a Donald Trump cult of personality. Of course the RNC won’t support racial justice or health care or human decency, but it’s also unlikely to showcase even the basic competence involved in putting on an innovative and watchable political convention during the coronavirus pandemic. That’s appropriate, since Trump is responsible for so much of the pandemic’s devastation in the United States.

Most of all, this RNC will showcase what the Republican Party is today: the Trump Party. Instead of a platform outlining the party’s policy agenda, Republicans are just signing on for blanket support of Trump. This is it: “be it RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda.” 

No, convention platforms are never directly translated into law, but that is nonetheless a stunning abdication of any attempt by the broader Republican Party to assert an agenda beyond Donald Trump’s passing whims.

The RNC speaker list also highlights Trump’s total ownership of the party. Trump himself will reportedly speak every night, and the rest of the speakers announced thus far—a fairly short list—are heavy on Trump family members and lackeys. This is how deep into the Trump family the lineup goes: Not just Don Jr., but girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle. Not just Eric, but wife Lara. Even largely forgotten daughter Tiffany Trump will speak. Favorite daughter Ivanka is a given, despite the ethics conflict her alleged work in the White House presents—in that capacity, she isn’t supposed to engage in politics.

Since this is the Trump Party, though, ethics issues are not just being ignored but gleefully trampled. In addition to Ivanka’s appearance, Team Trump is violating the Hatch Act’s prohibition on using the government properties like the White House for political purposes, planning for Melania Trump to speak from the Rose Garden, which she just had redesigned in some very interesting timing, while Donald Trump speaks from the White House and fireworks are set off over the South Lawn. “Some of Mr. Trump’s aides privately scoff at the Hatch Act and say they take pride in violating its regulations,” The New York Times reports. The Hatch Act is, let’s be clear, not some kind of gentle guideline. It is a law. Which Trump aides are proud of breaking.

Other speakers will include South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem; Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (another significant ethics issue); Sens. Tim Scott, Rand Paul, Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton, and Marsha Blackburn; Reps. Jim Jordan and Elise Stefanik; former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley; and former Florida attorney general and Trump impeachment lawyer Pam Bondi. The St. Louis couple who achieved notoriety for pointing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters passing by their giant mansion in a gated community will be there, as will Andrew Pollack, the father of a Parkland shooting victim.

Ernst is notably the only Republican senator currently facing a tough race who is scheduled to speak at the RNC.

Morning Digest: Ever heard of a ‘top-four’ primary? It could be coming to a state near you soon

Leading Off

Election Reforms: This November, as many as five states will vote on ballot measures that could dramatically change how their elections are conducted.

In Florida, voters will decide whether to institute a top-two primary system, while Massachusetts could implement instant-runoff voting. Alaska, meanwhile, could become the first state in the nation to adopt a "top-four" voting system, which, as we'll explain, is something of a hybrid between top-two and instant-runoff.

Top-four ballot measures have also been certified for the ballot in Arkansas and North Dakota. However, there's still ongoing litigation in each state that could impact whether or not these referendums would take effect if they won.

Campaign Action

We'll start with a look at the Florida top-two ballot initiative, Amendment 3, which needs to win at least 60% of the vote in order to pass. If this measure takes effect, starting in January of 2024, all the candidates in races for governor; the other three state cabinet offices (attorney general, chief financial officer, and commissioner of agriculture); and for the state legislature would each compete on one primary ballot rather than in separate party primaries.

The two contenders with the most votes, regardless of party, would then advance to the general election. Candidates would not be able to avert the general election by taking a majority of the vote in the primary. Amendment 3 would not apply to federal elections such as the presidential or congressional contests due to limitations on the scope of any single initiative.

California and Washington already use the top-two primary (Louisiana also uses a similar all-party primary system that does allow candidates to avoid a second round of voting if they win a majority), and as we've written before, it's notorious for producing outcomes that don't reflect the desires of the electorate. One chief reason why: A party can win a majority of votes cast in the primary, yet get shut out of the general election simply because it fields a large number of candidates while the minority party only puts forth a few, or even just two.

Furthermore, primary electorates often feature very different demographic compositions than higher-turnout general elections, producing greater partisan and racial dissonance between the two rounds. These distortions have seen one party or the other get shut out of general elections in recent years in California and Washington, including in contests they likely would have won if the parties had gotten to nominate candidates through traditional primaries.

Indeed, if the top-two had been in place in 2018 when both parties had competitive primaries for governor, Democrats would have been locked out of the general election. That year, Republican Ron DeSantis would have taken first place with 29%, while fellow Republican Adam Putnam would have beaten Democrat Andrew Gillum 19-17 for second, even though Republicans outvoted Democrats just 51-49.

The only poll we've seen all year of Amendment 3 was a late May survey from St. Pete Polls, which found the "no" side ahead 44-35. However, Amendment 3's backers have received at least $6.2 million from conservative billionaire Mike Fernandez, who has been leading the effort to get the top-two implemented, which gives the campaign the resources to put up a serious fight.

Over in Massachusetts, meanwhile, supporters of instant-runoff voting (also known as ranked-choice voting), are trying to pass Question 2 this November. If Question 2 receives a majority of the vote, then starting in 2022, instant-runoff would be used in both primaries and general elections for governor and other statewide offices; U.S. Senate and House seats; the state legislature; and countywide posts such as district attorney and sheriff. The measure would not impact presidential elections or races for city and town offices.

The only poll we've seen this year was an early August survey from MassINC that showed voters deadlocked 36-36 on whether to adopt Question 2. If the measure passes, then Massachusetts would become the second state after Maine to use this method to decide many of its elections.

Finally, voters in Alaska, Arkansas, and North Dakota each will have the opportunity to become the first states to adopt a top-four primary. This system would require all the candidates to face off on one primary ballot, and the top four vote-getters would advance. In the general election, voters would then be able to rank their choices using instant-runoff voting. Each of these referendums only needs to win a majority of the vote to pass, but there are some key differences between them.

While each would apply to all congressional, legislative, and statewide races, only Alaska's Measure 2 would also institute instant-runoff voting for the presidential contest. North Dakota's Measure 3, meanwhile, would additionally remove the legislature's unfettered control over legislative redistricting and put it in the hands of a bipartisan commission.

North Dakota's top-four law would also take effect 30 days after approval, Arkansas' would start Jan. 1, 2021, and Alaska's measure would begin in 2022. The only poll we've seen from any of these three states was a mid-July survey from the Arkansas League of Women Voters, which supports the top-four measure, from Mercury Analytics that showed respondents agreeing by a 60-28 margin that they support "[a]llow[ing] voters to rank their top four candidates when voting in the general election so voters can have more say in their second choice candidate."

Senate

MA-Sen: The Sept. 1 Democratic primary has become particularly heated on the airwaves in recent days.

Sen. Ed Markey is running a commercial accusing Rep. Joe Kennedy of running a desperate campaign, while a spot from Kennedy's allies at New Leadership PAC features audio from the congressman's recent speech declaring that Markey was questioning his family's integrity. The ads come at a time when Markey has been trying to use Kennedy's membership in what is arguably America's most prominent political family (the congressman is the grandson of Robert F. Kennedy) against him.

In an Aug. 11 debate, Markey took aim at New Leadership PAC, which Kennedy's twin brother and other relatives have been raising money for. Markey also brought up speculation that the congressman's father and namesake, former Rep. Joe Kennedy II, could fund the PAC with the $2.8 million in campaign funds he still has available almost 22 years since he left Congress. "Tell your father and tell your twin brother you don't want any money to be spent on negative ads," Markey said in a clip that generated plenty of attention and quickly made it into the senator's digital advertising.

Markey also generated headlines with an online commercial that didn't mention Kennedy or his family directly, but concluded with the senator putting his own spin on the famous 1961 inaugural address delivered by the congressman's great uncle. "With all due respect," Markey said, "it's time to start asking what your country can do for you."

On Monday, Kennedy responded with the speech that was used in New Leadership PAC's new commercial. Kennedy declares, "I'm here today to talk about my family, because Sen. Markey is questioning their integrity, weaponizing their history." The congressman goes on to talk about his grandfather's record as U.S. attorney general during the civil rights era before saying he understands that "a legacy is earned." Kennedy continues by describing his own work in Congress and declares, "We deserve a senator who will not stand by."

Kennedy's campaign is also running a commercial where the narrator says he "knows how a legacy is earned." The spot goes on to show footage of RFK and the congressman's two legendary great uncles, JFK and Ted Kennedy, and says that for the younger Kennedy, battles for racial justice and healthcare for all are "a fight in his blood."

Markey's campaign, meanwhile, is airing their own commercial that contrasts the senator with Kennedy. After decrying how Kennedy is attacking the incumbent, the narrator quotes from the Boston Globe's Markey endorsement. The narrator reads how the senator has "been ahead of the curve championing progressive causes," while Kennedy "lacks the chops and track record Markey brings."

Markey's allies at United for Massachusetts are also up with a spot that also quotes the Globe endorsement, though it doesn't mention Kennedy. The ad extols Markey as "a progressive champion with chops" who has been "achieving real results on healthcare and the environment." The commercial also features images of Markey with two of his most prominent supporters, fellow Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

This has been a very expensive contest. From July 1 to Aug. 12 (the time the FEC defines as the pre-primary period), Markey outraised Kennedy $1.4 million to $930,000, while Kennedy outspent the incumbent $4.3 million to $2.8 million during this time. Markey had a $3.5 million to $1.4 million cash-on-hand edge for the homestretch.

NH-Sen: Saint Anselm College's new poll of the Sept. 8 GOP primary finds wealthy attorney Corky Messner, who is Donald Trump's endorsed candidate, with a 31-29 edge over retired Army Brig. Gen. Donald Bolduc. A late June Remington Research poll for Bolduc had Messner up 17-8, while a mid-July Tarrance Group internal for Messner had him ahead 39-27. The winner will be the underdog against Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.

Gubernatorial

MT-Gov: Campaign finance reports are in covering June 15 to Aug. 15. Democrat Mike Cooney outraised Greg Gianforte $725,000 to $582,000, while the wealthy Republican threw down an additional $1 million of his own money. Gainforte outspent Cooney by a lopsided $1.7 million to $209,000 during this time, though it was Cooney who ended the period with $670,000 to $330,000 a cash-on-hand lead. However, Gianforte likely can afford to do much more self-funding over the next few months.

NH-Gov: Saint Anselm College has released the first poll we've seen of the Sept. 8 Democratic primary, and it gives state Senate Majority Leader Dan Feltes a narrow 22-19 lead over Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky; an additional 13% say they'd back "someone else," though there aren't any other candidates on the ballot.

Feltes, meanwhile is using his second TV spot to go right after Republican Gov. Chris Sununu over his handling of school reopenings. Feltes appears with his wife and young children and says, "As parents, we just want to know our kids will be safe. That's why it's so distressing that Chris Sununu refuses to even put forward a plan." Feltes continues, "He says nobody has to wear masks. There are no clear guidelines. Teachers are afraid. Why shouldn't they be?"

House

CA-08: The general election for this open 55-40 Trump seat hasn't generated much attention, but Democrat Chris Bubser has released a poll from Global Strategy Group to try to change that. The survey gives Republican Assemblyman Jay Obernolte a 48-38 lead, which Bubser, who is a first-time candidate, argues will dramatically narrow once she gets her name out. The sample also finds Donald Trump ahead only ahead 49-44 in this seat, which contains northern San Bernardino County and the geographically vast, but sparsely populated, High Desert to the north.

Bubser ended June with a small $325,000 to $300,000 cash-on-hand edge over Obernolte, but she'll need much more to effectively communicate her message: Almost all of this seat is located in the Los Angeles media market, where it costs quite a lot of money to air TV commercials.

FL-18: Immediately after Pam Keith decisively won the Democratic primary for Florida's 18th Congressional District, Republican Rep. Brian Mast launched a $150,000 TV buy against her. The commercial, like so many Republican ads we've seen this cycle, ties Keith to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.

The narrator alternates between praising Mast's record and portraying Keith as an extremist, declaring at one point that the Democrat "called all Republicans 'traitors,' 'racist,' 'stupid,' and 'white supremacists.'" Parts of Keith tweets going after Donald Trump and his allies fill the screen, including an October 2019 message written during the House's impeachment inquiry into Trump where she asked, "I wonder if the GOP realizes that an entire generation of Americans is growing up knowing no other version of Republicans than the racist, white supremacist, bigoted, woman-hating, anti-science, delusional, gun-worshiping, treasonous greed-mongers currently on display."

Mast held a huge $1.8 million to $100,000 cash-on-hand lead over Keith on July 29, and he's likely going negative now to weaken her before she can effectively respond. Still, it's a bit surprising that Mast feels he needs to do this, since he's looked safe for a long time.

This seat, which includes the Palm Beach area and the Treasure Coast to the north, moved from 51-48 Romney to 53-44 Trump, and it remained tough turf last cycle. Mast won re-election 54-46 against a well-funded opponent, and according to analyst Matthew Isbell, both Republicans Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis carried it 52-47 as they were narrowly winning the U.S. Senate and gubernatorial contests statewide.

Still, this district could be worth watching this fall, especially if 2020 turns out to be a better year for Florida Democrats than 2018 did, which may be why Mast has decided he needs to take action now.

GA-07: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that the far-right Club for Growth has booked $900,000 on TV to attack Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux, though there's no copy of the spot yet. The Club is backing Republican Rich McCormick, who badly trailed Bourdeaux $760,000 to $106,000 in cash-on-hand at the end of June.

MA-01: Democratic Majority for Israel recently launched a $100,000 ad buy against Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse ahead of the Sept. 1 Democratic primary, and their newly released commercial attacks him over the condition of the local school system. American Working Families, a PAC supported by labor, also began airing commercials earlier this month going after Morse on this.

DMFI's new campaign is the latest in what has become a very expensive intra-party battle for this safely blue western Massachusetts seat. OpenSecrets reports that, as of Friday, outside groups supporting Rep. Richie Neal have spent a total of $1.3 million, while organizations like the Justice Democrats and Fight Corporate Monopolies have dropped $995,000 to oppose the incumbent.

Neal's campaign also maintains a huge financial edge over Morse, though the challenger has been bringing in a credible amount of money. Morse outraised Neal $470,000 to $360,000 during the pre-primary period, while the incumbent outspent him by a $1.8 million to $490,000 margin during this time. Neal held a $2.8 million to $295,000 cash-on-hand edge for the final weeks of the race.

MA-04: Newton City Councilor Jake Auchincloss uses his new commercial for the Sept. 1 Democratic primary to contrast his time in the Marines, where he says leadership was "on you," with Donald Trump's refusal to take responsibility for his many failures.

NY-01: In the previous Digest, we wrote that an internal poll for Democrat Nancy Goroff found Donald Trump leading Joe Biden 46-42 in New York's 1st Congressional District. However, those numbers were transposed by the outlet that originally reported the poll. Goroff's poll, conducted by Global Strategy Group, in fact found Biden ahead 46-42.

Ads: The conservative Congressional Leadership Fund is spending $2.5 million on August advertising in seven Democratic-held seats that Donald Trump carried in 2016. Politico provides a breakdown:

  • ME-02 (Jared Golden): $200,000
  • NM-02 (Xochitl Torres Small): $500,000
  • NY-11 (Max Rose): $260,000
  • NY-22 (Anthony Brindisi): $650,000
  • OK-05 (Kendra Horn): $500,000
  • SC-01 (Joe Cunningham): $200,000
  • VA-07: (Abigail Spanberger): $200,000

It is not clear if these buys come from CLF's existing reservations in these seats, or if it's new money. The only spot that is available right now is the group's ad against Horn, which ties her to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Other Races

PA-AG: Josh Shapiro, a rising star in Pennsylvania Democratic politics, won his bid for attorney general 51-49 in 2016 as Donald Trump was carrying Pennsylvania 48-47, but Republicans are hoping to unseat him this fall and regain a seat they'd previously held for decades. Shapiro is only the second Democrat to win this post since it became an elected office in 1980: The first was Kathleen Kane, who decisively won in 2012 but resigned in disgrace in 2016.

Republican nominee Heather Heidelbaugh recently launched what her campaign says is a $200,000 opening ad campaign. Heidelbaugh doesn't mention Shapiro directly in her spot as she talks about her tough upbringing, but her pledge to "serve my full term" was very much a dig at the incumbent, whom politicos widely expect to run for governor in 2022. Indeed, when Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, who will be termed-out, was asked last year about the contest to succeed him, he pointed at Shapiro and said, "That's my guy right there."

Shapiro held a massive $4.1 million to $210,000 cash-on-hand lead over Heidelbaugh on June 22, but the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that a group called Commonwealth Leaders Fund has booked a total $435,000 to help the Republican. The PAC, which the paper says has already spent $144,000, has been running commercials that ditch Heidelbaugh's subtlety and tear into Shapiro as "a career politician already looking to run for governor."

Shapiro responded in mid-August with what the Inquirer writes is his first TV spot. The ad says Shapiro is being attacked by dishonest commercials "paid for by people backing the insurance companies' candidate, hack lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh." The narrator goes on to praise the incumbent's service as attorney general, including his high-profile role in "holding Catholic Church officials accountable for covering up sexual abuse."

Ad Roundup

Can Chuck Schumer be the majority leader progressives seek?

After almost four decades in Congress, Chuck Schumer’s political evolution may be nearly complete.

With Senate Democrats favored to win control of the chamber on Nov. 3, the 69-year-old Schumer is poised to make history. He'd be the first Jewish Senate majority leader and the first New Yorker to hold the post. And no one would have served in Congress for longer until reaching the top; the man Schumer is trying to replace, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), did it in a brisk 30 years by comparison.

Yet the Schumer of today is a far cry from the Reagan-era liberal who won election to the House in 1980 and then embraced the mantle of a "law-and-order Democrat" when he ran for the Senate in 1998. The self-described "angry centrist" is no more. Once derided for being too close to Wall Street, Schumer aides now boast that he has stood up to the financial services industry. Schumer is still distrusted by some on the left, but the New York Democrat insists his views have shifted to reflect a different constituency, as well as the more progressive Democratic Party of the Donald Trump era.

“A good elected official looks at the needs of the people he or she represents and does everything he or she can to help solve those needs, and the world changes,” Schumer said in an interview when asked about his evolution since coming to the Senate. “And the problems that existed, say in the '90s, are different than the problems that exist today.”

Schumer said his priorities for the next Congress include many of the top issues favored by progressives: “income and wealth inequality, climate [change], racial justice, health care, and improving our democracy,” along with the ongoing response to the economic and health-related fallout from the coronavirus pandemic.

But even if the election goes as Democrats hope, Schumer will have only a small — and ideologically diverse — majority to push that agenda through the Senate. Whether he succeeds will not only shape a Joe Biden presidency but his own future in a party moving quickly to the left.

If Schumer ultimately wants to enact the type of change he’s calling for, he’ll likely need to eliminate the legislative filibuster, a legacy defining move that would fundamentally alter the nature of what was once known as the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.” That would further polarize an already bitterly divided Senate, with Republicans sure to vow retaliation when they next have the majority.

Schumer says he hasn’t made up his mind on what to do about the filibuster, although he will come under heavy pressure from the left — and possibly Biden, Schumer’s old Senate colleague — to scrap the hallowed tradition if Democrats control the White House and Congress in January.

When asked about getting rid of the filibuster, Schumer has repeatedly said, “Nothing is off the table.”

Since becoming minority leader in 2016, Schumer has kept Senate Democrats united to a striking degree: through the Obamacare repeal battle of 2017, repeated government shutdowns, Trump's impeachment trial earlier this year, and the fight over the $2.2 trillion CARES Act in March, where Schumer and Democrats won major concessions from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the GOP majority.

Trump’s incendiary behavior and rhetoric makes it much easier to rally Senate Democrats in opposition — as does the sense that victory may be only months away. But Schumer has also made outreach to all corners of his caucus a priority, including by expanding his leadership team far beyond what he inherited from his predecessor, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). That group now spans a wide ideological range, from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Schumer also frantically dials his colleagues’ phones each day, speaking to as many as 15 to 20 Democrats in any 24-hour period. He even finds time to speak to Reid once a week; the former senator is “Number 23” on Schumer's speed dial.

“Chuck Schumer has an impossibly difficult job, and he does it extremely well,” Sanders said in a statement. “In a caucus with a very wide range of political views, Chuck has maintained strong party unity and has brought the caucus together in a progressive way to take on Trump and the right-wing extremism of the Republican Party.”

Schumer, though, has a long history of embracing policies that have infuriated the left, and some progressives lamented his ascension to Democratic leader following Reid’s retirement.

Schumer voted for the Iraq War in 2003 and opposed the 2015 Iran nuclear accord. He voted against gay marriage as a House member in 1996, only to reverse his position 13 years later as New York Democrats shifted on the issue. Schumer closely aligned with the financial services industry in his home state by backing repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, and he raised tens of millions of dollars from Wall Street as the Senate Democrats’ campaign chair during the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. In 2006, Schumer supported a border fence between the United States and Mexico, and on other occasions, he’s called for a national ID card to reduce illegal immigration. Two years ago, Schumer offered Trump $25 billion in border wall funding in exchange for providing young undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, a move criticized by some pro-immigration groups.

“He doesn’t have any core beliefs or core policy views,” Waleed Shahid, communications director for Justice Democrats, said of Schumer. “Progressives are definitely wary of him and no one considers him a progressive. But that said, he has been making concessions and moving because he knows that’s where the party is going, especially in a state as blue as New York.”

When asked about a potential primary challenge from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) or another progressive in 2022, Schumer, though, didn't express any concerns.

“Look, throughout my career, I do the job for my constituents and for my country and it always works out,” Schumer said.

Schumer is known for crisscrossing New York state obsessively in small chartered planes to make sure voters never forget who their senior senator is. He is famous for his Sunday press conferences focusing on hyperlocal New York issues. Schumer’s elderly parents still live in Queens, and he visited them every weekend up until the pandemic made such contacts risky.

“In almost all of my career, even when I started in the New York State Assembly, I haven’t had a grand plan like, ‘I’m going to be here 10 years from now, here in 20 years.’ I do my job well and then the next thing sort of falls into place,” Schumer added.

When he was elected to Congress in 1980 — and even more during his 1998 Senate race against Republican incumbent Al D’Amato — Schumer positioned himself as a “tough-on-crime" Democrat. With New York City and the nation suffering from historically high levels of crime during that period, Schumer took a hard line on criminal justice issues, as did an overwhelming majority of lawmakers in both parties.

Schumer was one of the architects of the 1994 crime bill that Biden has lately been criticized over, using a subcommittee on the House Judiciary panel to help draft the legislation. Schumer pushed for longer prison sentences for criminals and sought to expand the use of the death penalty.

The New York Democrat has also supported increased government surveillance, both before and after the 9/11 attacks. For instance, Schumer backed "roving multipoint wiretaps" without warrants when proposed by the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s. Schumer voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, along with nearly every senator. In 2004, Schumer suggested the threat of a terrorist nuclear attack could warrant the use of harsh interrogation techniques.

"Take the hypothetical: If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, 'Do what you have to do,'" Schumer asserted. Schumer, however, has also voted in support of multiple anti-torture measures.

Yet the great dichotomy of Schumer, the enigma the New York Democrat presents progressives, is that he balances these positions with dramatically liberal views that were often far ahead of their time. Schumer came of age during the Vietnam War, a defining moment for the American liberal movement and for him personally. Schumer sees himself at heart as a liberal reformer, just not with the purity that the younger generation of progressives demands. Schumer's own official biography say his goal is "finding common sense solutions to national issues."

One of the first bills Schumer co-sponsored as a House member in 1981 called for a federal criminal investigation into the murder of Black children in Atlanta. Schumer has long fought for public housing, going back to battles with the Reagan administration over funding cuts. Another early Schumer proposal called for a tax cut for renters, a major issue in New York and other big cities. The New York Democrat pushed through a tax credit for middle-class families in 2009 to help pay for college. Schumer and future-Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced legislation in 1989 to provide housing for AIDS victims. The 1994 crime bill included an assault weapons ban, something gun control groups can only dream of implementing today, and the New Yorker remains a staunch supporter of new legislation to curb gun violence.

Schumer has also been a strong advocate for abortion rights throughout his career, and he was a key player in passage of the Violence Against Women Act. The New York Democrat voted against both NAFTA in 1993 and the revised United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement this year. Schumer's first big legislative victories focused on consumer rights. And Schumer has been a hawk on Chinese trade and currency manipulation for decades to the delight of organized labor.

“Chuck stands up for our caucus every day,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), another member of his leadership team, said in a statement. “I've seen up close and personal how hard he fights so that we can make real progressive change for working families.”

In an interview, Reid — who came to the Senate as a pro-gun, anti-abortion Democrat only to end up voting the other way after he became party leader years later — said he understands the difficulties Schumer faces, particularly as the party shifts.

“I think that people who are locked into legislative positions or political positions make a mistake, they don’t get anything accomplished,” said Reid, who gave Schumer his first big step into Democratic leadership ranks.

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 09:  U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) (L) speaks to members of the media as Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) (R) listens after the weekly Democratic Policy Luncheon at the Capitol September 9, 2015 in Washington, DC. Senate Democrats held the weekly luncheon to discuss Democratic agenda.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Schumer has won loyalty among his members not just through his constant communication with them. In interviews with a series of Democratic senators, several recalled the lengths Schumer went to fundraise for them and help them get elected.

"When I first ran [for the House] in 2006, he campaigned for me, he went to my red, red district for me, he did events for me, he went to fundraisers for me," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). "He was extremely generous back then, and I didn’t know him at all."

Schumer has even dialed down his well-earned reputation as a media hog, often stepping back to push other colleagues in front of the TV cameras.

“People would say ‘Watch out, if there’s a microphone Sen. Schumer is going to be there,’” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), a member of leadership, “That’s what used to be said, and I think he understands that [in] his role as leader, it’s his job to make sure that others can get to the microphone.”

Schumer has been able to work closely with his one-time rival Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a former roommate on Capitol Hill. Durbin, the Senate Democratic whip since 2005, was once seen as Reid’s successor. But Schumer leaped over Durbin with Reid’s support. Both men say there’s no animosity between them now.

“There were differences, I’m not going to gloss over them, along the way,” Durbin acknowledged. “I look at him and what he’s doing and think there are many parts that I could do, but there are parts of it that he does so well that I really can’t do as well. He is a much better political analyst. He's a substantially better fundraiser than I am. I told him from the start, ‘I’m part of your team, I’m going to be working with you,’ and that’s exactly the way it’s done.”

Schumer and Biden had a good relationship when both were in the Senate. The New York Democrat says the former vice president once predicted that Schumer could become majority leader. Schumer added that the two speak frequently amid the campaign and that they’d be strong partners if given the chance to govern.

Schumer’s work with Republicans is typically more pointed. He’s routinely attacked by Trump, who refers to him as “Cryin’ Chuck” or “Fake Tears,” and Schumer fires back just as aggressively. For Senate Republicans, especially McConnell, Schumer is better to deal with than Reid, although he’s also seen as a serious threat and not to be underestimated.

“He’s a tough guy and he’s pretty ruthless, but if you kind of understand what you’re dealing with, you can find some areas to work with,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who has collaborated with Schumer on several pieces of legislation, including patent litigation reform.

But McConnell remembers as well that Schumer dumped millions into the 2008 Kentucky Senate race in a bid to knock off the Republican leader, a payback of sorts for the GOP’s successful effort to defeat Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) in 2004. And Schumer voted against McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, to be confirmed as Transportation secretary in early 2017, a shocking breach of senatorial etiquette between party leaders that took McConnell a long while to get over.

That relationship, of course, will be altered dramatically if Schumer is in charge of the Senate and McConnell is forced back into minority leader, a role he had for eight years before the GOP took over the Senate in 2014 and where he frequently thwarted the Obama administration.

“I think Schumer's gonna sit down with McConnell, or whoever is the [Republican] leader and say, ‘OK, here's the things we have to make progress on, are you willing to work with me?’” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who is also a close Biden ally.

“I think at that point the ball is in the Republicans’ court. If McConnell says, or whoever their leader [is] says, ‘You know what, no, I have no interest in working with you, go to hell,’ then Schumer will ask a group of us to go work with our friends and colleagues in the Republican caucus and see if we can find a group that is willing to buck their caucus leadership.”

And if no such group exists, even in a post-Trump GOP, Schumer will have to decide whether to blow up the filibuster once and for all, or watch his ambitious agenda stagnate.

Posted in Uncategorized

Rep. Collins: Dems ‘using the postal service’ just ‘like they used the Russia impeachment to get at’ Trump

Democrats are “using the postal service now just like they used the Russia impeachment to get at this president,” House Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., told “Fox & Friends Weekend” on Sunday.