The Question the Mueller Report Has Not Answered: Why?

A piece in The Atlantic by David Frum, a former Republican, looks at the question that the Mueller report has seemingly failed to answer.  Why Putin's intense desire to see Trump elected and why Trump's willingness to go along with the effort.  There are few things Putin does without expecting a payback of some nature, so what did he expect to gain other than seeing the USA run by an incompetent regime?  The Mueller report has not answered this question and we can only hope that congressional investigations find the answer to this important question.  Here are column highlights:

Good news, America. Russia helped install your president. But although he owes his job in large part to that help, the president did not conspire or collude with his helpers. He was the beneficiary of a foreign intelligence operation, but not an active participant in that operation. He received the stolen goods, but he did not conspire with the thieves in advance.

This is what Donald Trump’s administration and its enablers in Congress and the media are already calling exoneration. But it offers no reassurance to Americans who cherish the independence and integrity of their political process.

The question unanswered by the attorney general’s summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report is: Why? Russian President Vladimir Putin took an extreme risk by interfering in the 2016 election as he did. Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency—the most likely outcome—Russia would have been exposed to fierce retaliation by a powerful adversary. The prize of a Trump presidency must have glittered alluringly, indeed, to Putin and his associates. Why?

Did they admire Trump’s anti-NATO, anti–European Union, anti-ally, pro–Bashar al-Assad, pro-Putin ideology?  Were they attracted by his contempt for the rule of law and dislike of democracy?

Did they hold compromising information about him, financial or otherwise? 

Were there business dealings in the past, present, or future?

Or were they simply attracted by Trump’s general ignorance and incompetence, seeing him as a kind of wrecking ball to be smashed into the U.S. government and U.S. foreign policy?

Trump Is Giving Dems The Edge In Senate Races

Notwithstanding how frightening the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency might be, with Trump doing poorly in the latest polls, he may ultimately be a gift to Democrats and may be the silver bullet Democrats need to retake control of the U.S. Senate.  Yes, the GOP know nothings and Neanderthals in the House of Representatives would still pose a problem, but a Democrat win of the White House and control of the Senate could set the stage for the appointment of up to three Supreme Court justices and perhaps harken in an a new liberal Court that would reverse travesties like Citizens United and set the stage for further advances in LGBT rights rulings.  Talking Points Memo looks at the situation.  Here are highlights:

If Democrats are having a harder time than expected in a few marquee races in 2016, none of it may matter in the time of Donald Trump.

This week, polls showed the Republican presidential candidate's campaign in free fall –high single-digit and sometimes double-digit deficits– that even the strongest senatorial candidates likely won't be able to weather.

In Pennsylvania, a Franklin and Marshall College poll found Clinton had an 11 point lead. In Florida, a Suffolk University poll found Clinton was up 6 points in a head-to-head match-up with Trump. In New Hampshire –where Democrats recruited a popular two-term sitting governor to run for the Senate– Clinton was up 15 points against Trump.

Those are margins that get very difficult for Republican senators to outrun, experts say.

"You cannot just withstand a blowout," said Rob Jesmer, a former executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "I could see a scenario where we lose the White House and hold the Senate, but if Trump is just getting destroyed even if our guys can outperform the ballot at three to four or even five points, it is very problematic."

Democrats need five states to win the Senate majority back in November and four to tie it. They are most bullish on states like Wisconsin and Illinois, which seem to be trending blue. Their next best hope seems to be in New Hampshire and in Indiana, where the last-minute recruiting of Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) could be enough to bring Democrats to a tie in the Senate. If Clinton wins the White House, four seats will be enough to give them the majority on tie votes.

From there, however, the road to the majority relies heavily on hard races against incumbents in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania where the saving grace for Democrats may be that the presidential campaign will dominate the airwaves.

“Portman has gotten a lot of good press lately, and he’s earned it," said Kyle Kondik, a Senate race expert based at the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "On a lot of different marks Portman is a superior candidate to Strickland, but Strickland may have the benefit of the top of the ticket.”

Even in Pennsylvania, where Clinton is up 11, but McGinty is just up a single point, Kondik predicts the mere perception of a blowout at the top of the ticket though could hurt Republican turnout in November and favor Democrats.

"If the winds are blowing the Democrats’ way it seems hard to think that all these 50/50 Senate races are going to break the other way," Kondik said.

Is It Time to Divest From HRC?

I and many others have had enough of the Human Rights Campaign ("HRC") and its bloated executive salaries, lack of support for local LGBT rights organizations, and most recently endorsement of a Republican that might help the anti-gay GOP retain control of the U.S. Senate.  A piece in Daily Kos looks at the question of whether it is time for liberals and progressives to cease their support of HRC.  I have made my decision and have ceased all contributions to HRC and removed the HRC bumper sticker from my car.  I'd be interested in what readers think.  Here are highlights from the Daily Kos article:

When the gay rights behemoth known as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) endorsed Illinois GOP Sen. Mark Kirk over his Democratic challenger, Rep. Tammy Duckworth, it took a lot of heat for obvious reasons. Control of the Senate has become a critical flashpoint in 2016 now that liberals have a chance to completely reshape the center of gravity of the Supreme Court with a single justice—a justice that GOP Senate leadership has committed to obstructing indefinitely.

In other words, Republican control of the U.S. Senate is single-handedly blocking a once-in-a-generation opportunity for progressives. In the meantime, it’s also a major hurdle (though not the only one) to congressional passage of the Equality Act, which would provide federal nondiscrimination protections to Americans on the basis of “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.”

For many progressives, the notion that an LGBT equality organization would endorse a Republican is anathema. I am not one of them.

As Mark Josef Stern wrote at Slate:

We shouldn’t criticize HRC for attempting to play the long game with Kirk. Rather, we should criticize them for attempting to play the long game stupidly.

Given the current political climate and the particulars of this coming election, there’s just no good explanation for this mind-boggling endorsement. If Tammy Duckworth was a conserva-Dem, maybe. But not only did she have a 100 percent rating from HRC in the 2013-2014 Congress to Kirk’s 78 percent, the Illinois senate race promises to be extremely competitive, and literally every seat counts on the path to Democrats flipping the handful of seats necessary to regain control of the Senate. (If Democrats hold the White House, they actually only need four since the VP is the tie-breaking vote.)

In the interest of full disclosure, Daily Kos has endorsed Duckworth, but that’s not the impetus for my piece. The controversy made my radar again this week when Kirk said he would support Donald Trump if he were the GOP nominee.

In the words of blogger Andy Towle, “HRC’s Appalling Mark Kirk Endorsement Now Comes with Donald Trump.” That’s when I noticed an organic phenomenon on Twitter that struck me a nascent #DivestFromHRC movement. The twitter search “Kirk HRC” yielded a growing number of sentiments like this simple message: Done with support for HRC. So disappointed: Kirk.

I’m not an HRC fan but I’m also not necessarily an HRC hater—they’ve always had their faults as does any large group. My biggest quibble is this: since they’re working on all things LGBT, they aren’t necessarily accountable for anything. In 2009-2010, for instance, they were initially committed to passing hate crimes protections (which did happen) and then the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA). But when repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” jumped ahead of ENDA—mainly because DADT-specific groups applied more outside pressure and actually protested Congress and the White House—HRC jumped on that bandwagon even though ENDA had been their priority. So the group manages to get partial credit for most LGBTQ wins, but it has little accountability for losses. When something fails, they can always say, well, we were working on (fill in the blank) as a way to dodge responsibility.

[S]omething Michelangelo Signorile noted about the Kirk endorsement has stuck with me.

If HRC is not answerable to LGBT people, however — and its president, Griffin, rarely even gives interviews to LGBT media, while speaking often in the larger media — exactly to whom and what is it answerable, and what are its true priorities? One thing is clear: HRC doesn’t speak for the LGBT community, and the sooner that politicians and those in the media grasp that, the smarter they will be.

HRC, by virtue of its size and visibility, has been given carte blanche to say and do whatever it wants while representing LGBTQ Americans. Mainstream media almost always looks to them first when they’re seeking someone to weigh in on LGBTQ rights. And ever more so recently, the group has made a series of decisions that have actually dealt serious blows to the equality push.

HRC isn’t solely responsible for the lack of LGBT debate this election cycle. As I have noted before, lack of grassroots energy has also contributed. But that is perhaps precisely a reason now to find alternatives to funding HRC. We need to be lifting up a multitude of voices. 

Divest? Don’t divest? Perhaps, there are groups you would like to raise up here as possibilities for giving. There’s always the legal groups—Lambda Legal, GLAD, ACLU, Transgender Law Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (which launched a “WeAreAllNC” campaign this week.) If you’re inherently drawn to electoral giving, there’s the relatively new Lesbian Political Action Committee, or LPAC, (which endorsed Tammy Duckworth this week). Perhaps some state or regional groups in the South, like SONG (Southerners On New Ground, @ignitekindred).

Virginia 3rd District Case Before SCOTUS Tomorrow

Republicans may well see themselves set to lose a congressional district in Virginia and deservedly so given the obscene gerrymandering that was forced through by the Republican controlled House of Delegates.  Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case and Republicans will have to convince the Court - likely an impossible task given the even split now on the Court - that the deliberate loading of black voters into the 3rd District to create a safe district for Randy Forbes is not illegal.   Here are highlights from the Daily Press:

Virginia's long-running legal battle over the state's 3^rd Congressional District lines will be taken up Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is the last hurrah for Republican members of Congress hoping to block a redrawn map likely to send an extra Virginia Democrat to Congress later this year. Already U.S. Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott's old district has been found unconstitutional, twice, by a lower court.

The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, and set oral arguments for Monday. But the court declined to keep the old lines in place while the matter was pending. Election preparations are proceeding under the new lines a three judge panel approved in January.

The new map took black voters out of Scott's district, moving them to the 4^th District and making it a likely Democratic pickup.

The high court's decision to proceed toward June Congressional primaries with that new map in place signaled, to some, that reversal is unlikely. But the court is hard to predict, though Justice Antonin Scalia's death last month changed the math.

With his seat vacant, eight justices will hear the case.  "I think it's a four-four issue at best," said Brian Cannon, executive director of OneVirginia2021, a redistricting reform group that has a separate lawsuit targeting House of Delegates districts in Virginia.

"I think the new districts will stay in place," Cannon predicted.

Poll: GOP Poised To Lose Senate Seats From SCOTUS Obstruction

Congressional Republicans have become so determined to prostitute themselves to the ugliest elements of the party base, a group that does not comprise a majority of the base, at least not yet, that they are increasingly ignoring the desires of the sane elements in the GOP and, more importantly, independent voters.  Blatant obstruction plays well with Christofascists (and their Tea Party first cousins) and white supremacists within the base, but could be leading the GOP to lose control of the U.S. Senate.  Two new polls look at the growing anger against obstructionist Republicans.  Politicususa has details.  Here are story highlights: 

Two new polls of Ohio and Pennsylvania revealed that voters are outraged over the Republican plan to block President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. The anger is so strong that it could cost the GOP incumbent Senate seats in both states.

According to PPP:

-Strong majorities of voters- 58/35 in Ohio and 57/40 in Pennsylvania- think that the vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be filled this year. What’s particularly noteworthy about those numbers- and concerning for Portman and Toomey- is how emphatic the support for approving a replacement is among independent voters. In Ohio they think a new Justice should be named this year 70/24 and in Pennsylvania it’s 60/37. Those independent voters are going to make the difference in these tight Senate races, and they have no tolerance for obstructionism on the vacancy.

-Voters are particularly angry about Senators taking the stance that they’re not going to approve anyone before even knowing who President Obama decides to put forward. By a 76/20 spread in Pennsylvania and a 74/18 one in Ohio, voters think the Senate should wait to see who is nominated to the Court before deciding whether or not to confirm that person. Toomey and Portman are out of line even with their own party base on that one- Republicans in Pennsylvania think 67/27 and in Ohio think 63/32 that the Senate should at least give President Obama’s choice a chance before deciding whether or not to confirm them.

If Senate Republicans cave to the conservative activists who are calling for Obama’s nominee to be blocked at all costs, they will be setting themselves up to lose two Senate seats in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The bad news for Sens. Toomey and Portman suggests that the Republican decision to preemptively block any Obama Supreme Court nominee could influence the presidential election in critical states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Republicans have badly bungled their handling of the vacancy created by the death of Justice Scalia, and if they stick to their politically unpopular plan, polling suggests that their Obama obstruction will cost them their Senate majority. The bad polling for the potential obstruction in Ohio and Pennsylvania could be the canary in the coal mine warning Republicans that their scheme to block Obama’s nominee might cost them the White House.

Randy Forbes to Change Districts to Save His Job

I have known 4th District Congressman Randy Forbes for almost 40 years and the man has gotten crazier and more of a religious extremist with every passing year.  Now, with his district redrawn to undo some of the GOP gerrymandering of Virgina's congressional districts, Forbes has announced that he will physically move his residence and run for the 2nd District seat being vacated by Scott Rigell.  It apparently never crossed Forbes' mind that he could be competitive in the redrawn 4th District if he shed some of his right wing Christian lunacy and focused on issues that matter to voters outside of knuckle dragging Christofascist circles.  One can only hope that the Democrats find a strong candidate to challenge Forbes who is not well known in the 2nd District outside of Republican circles.  A Virginian Pilot editorial takes some shots at Forbes.  Here are excerpts:

U.S. REP. RANDY Forbes announced Monday that he’s running for Congress again. But after 15 years in Virginia’s 4th District, Forbes is jumping to the 2nd Congressional District, based in Virginia Beach. He said he’s seeking the seat U.S. Rep. Scott Rigell is vacating to keep the power of a House Armed Services subcommittee in the hands of a Virginian.

In his announcement, he never mentioned that he’s abandoning the Chesapeake district he’s represented since 2001 — the district where he was born and grew up — to have a better chance of remaining in Congress.

He didn’t mention that the district that was drawn specifically for him in 2002 — a district so solidly Republican that Forbes has had only token opposition in his re-election bids — has been redrawn by the federal courts and is now more Democratic.

The conservative congressman, who touts his protection for the unborn, his A rating from the NRA and his stands for religious liberty as important identifiers, would have a hard time defending his record successfully in the redrawn 4th. He’d also have to defend his sponsorship of only one piece of successful legislation: To rename a post office.

This effort at self-preservation is why drawing districts for Congress and the General Assembly should be the responsibility of an independent commission, not lawmakers seeking to maintain jobs for themselves and their political allies. State lawmakers drew a safe seat for Forbes in 2002 and again in 2012 by packing African American voters from Richmond to Norfolk into the 3rd Congressional District.

The Conservative Review describes Forbes this way: “Forbes is primarily a backbencher, except when it comes to national security issues, which are his passion. ... He is also a leading voice warning against the rise of China as a global power. He formed and chairs the Congressional China Caucus which studies the rise of China.”

Forbes’ legislative battles and abiding passion have centered on social issues, an unnecessary and divisive distraction in a Congress marked by its inability to do anything constructive.

With the courts’ redrawn districts, Forbes had an opportunity to defend the record he’s compiled in his home district and the clout he’s accumulated. Instead of fighting for what he believes in, Forbes fled next door.

I hope Forbes' gambit fails and that he is voted out of office in November.  Hampton Roads needs a serious, objective reality accepting member of congress.  That doesn't describe Forbes.

Supreme Court Rejects GOP Stay Request on NewVirginia Congressional

Redrawn Districts

In other news, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the petition of the Virginia GOP to stay the lower federal court ruling redrawing Virginia congressional districts.  While the Court will hear arguments in the case next month, the refusal to grant a stay of the lower court ruling often can signal that the petitioning party is likely to lose the case on the merits.  The ruling leaves Christofascist pander Randy Forbes of the 4th District with a dilemma of whether to run for re-election in his current district which may change significantly or move his residence and run for the open seat in the 2nd District.  The Washington Post looks at the development.  Here are article excerpts:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied a request from Republican members of Congress to put on hold an election map that gives Democrats a chance to pick up a seat in this year’s election.
 
The ruling is the latest in a series of decisions triggered last year by a panel of federal judges who said Virginia’s map illegally packed African American voters into one district at the expense of their influence elsewhere.

Last month, the judges sought to change that by imposing a map that increases the number of African American voters, who reliably vote for Democrats, in a district that stretches from Richmond to Norfolk. It is represented by Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R).

Democrats viewed Monday’s decision as a sign that the June primary will take place under the new lines.  

It also increases the pressure on potential congressional candidates who are considering running in the newly drawn districts.

Forbes is reportedly considering a run for the seat currently held by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who is retiring in 2017. State Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) has said he would be interested in running for the district currently represented by Forbes.

Because of the special nature of redistricting challenges, appeals from three-judge panels go directly to the Supreme Court.

Congressional Republican Panic Grows Over Trump and Cruz

Despite the hopes, money, endorsements and perhaps even prayers of many Republicans in Congress, to date no so-called GOP establishment candidate has been able to blunt the popularity of Donald Trump and, in Iowa, Ted Cruz.  As noted before, many in the party believe that the nomination of either Cruz or Trump could be disastrous for  down ticket candidates and allow Democrats to regain control of the U.S. Senate as well as retain control of the White House.  As a piece in The Hill reports, the panic is growing.  The irony is that these same terrified politicians bear responsibility for creating the twin Frankenstein monsters they now fear.  Here are article highlights:

As all political eyes turn to the Iowa caucuses tonight, Donald Trump leads the race for the GOP nomination. He tops polls in Iowa and nationally. 

So how can it be that the billionaire real estate mogul does not have a single endorsement from a Republican Senator or Congressman — even among the most hard-line conservatives?

This remains a startling fact, even as establishment party leaders have made it clear that they prefer Trump to a notoriously unpopular current member of the Senate, Ted Cruz (R- Texas).

“Ted Cruz is a rigid ideologue,” Dent told the New York Times. “Donald Trump is ideologically scattered and malleable. In my view, a more rigid ideology would have a much harder time assembling a winning general election coalition than the less doctrinaire candidate.”

The real reason for all the anxiety among Republicans about Trump and Cruz is the fear that either man could drag down the party in Congress.

With Trump or Cruz at the top of the GOP slate in November, the Democrats like their chances of taking back the House and Senate. 

Ahead of the Iowa caucuses, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) released a memo outlining how they will target 13 vulnerable incumbent Republican congressmen by linking them to Trump’s extreme policies. 

“Regardless of the ultimate Republican nominee, Trump and Cruz have hijacked the Republican narrative and driven the conversation to a place that is bad news for House Republicans in a presidential year,” a DCCC spokeswoman recently told reporters. 

The Democrats need to win 30 House seats to retake the majority. This seems unlikely given the landscape of gerrymandered districts, which favors Republicans. But with a polarizing figure like Trump or Cruz as the GOP’s presidential nominee, it could happen.

Democrats have a much better chance of taking back the Senate. They need only to flip five seats currently held by Republicans. Of the 24 seats the GOP will be defending, seven of them are in states that President Obama carried in 2008 and 2012 — Illinois, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 

The incumbent Republican senators in those states would have an uphill battle to re-election even without having to explain their relationship to Trump or Cruz. 

By the GOP convention, the question will not be about endorsements. It will be about how many Congressional Republicans openly reject Trump or Cruz, if either man is the nominee.

If The Supreme Court Guts Obamacare, Republicans Can Say Goodbye to Senate Majority

For those who live in objective reality, it is common knowledge that the Affordable Health Care Act, or Obamacare as the far right calls it, is really based on a Republican plan that originated in conservative think tanks which was then implemented under Mitt Romney's governorship.  Fast forward and we see the racist GOP base foaming at the mouth over ANY program that is endorsed by a black president.  As the true political whores that they are, Congressional Republicans have been blathering on and on about the need to kill Obamacare.  They, of course, have no plan as to how they would replace Obamacare.  And there in lies the rub - and the potential political retribution the GOP will face.  A piece in Politicususa.com looks at the price the GOP may pay.  Here are highlights:

With a Supreme Court ruling on the King v Burwell case looming, the GOP has no contingency plan to help the nearly 6.5 million Americans in 34 states who will be hurt by a potential court decision eliminating the federal subsidies, made available through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). At first blush, a Supreme Court ruling that strikes at the heart of Obamacare would seem like a clear Republican victory.

However, because such a ruling would have a profound impact on a number of crucial battleground states in 2016, the ruling could create a backlash against Republicans in states necessary to win the 2016 presidential election. Also, many of the state’s that would be most affected by an end to federal Obamacare subsidies are also states with key races for control of the U.S. Senate. Ironically, Republicans who have spent the past half-decade trying to repeal Obamacare, may soon discover that a Supreme Court decision in their favor will prove a Pyrrhic victory that costs them control of the U.S. Senate.

For example, the state that stands to lose the most from an end to tax credits made available by the federal exchange is Florida. 1.488 million Florida residents benefit from the Obamacare federal exchange subsidies, with their average annual tax credit adding up to over 3500 dollars per person.

If the Supreme Court ends the federal exchange subsidies, not all voters will blame the GOP for taking away their affordable health care coverage. However, if even a small percentage of the 1.488 million Floridians assign blame where it belongs, the Republicans will have virtually no chance of holding onto the Senate seat being vacated by GOP presidential hopeful Marco Rubio.

Florida would be the biggest loser if the Supreme Court nixes the federal exchanges, but it is not the only state with a pivotal Senate race that would lose big. 10 of the 14 states that stand the most to lose if Obamacare subsidies are gutted by the Supreme Court are states where Republicans must defend a Senate seat in 2016.

The irony that a conservative Supreme Court ruling could have the unintended consequence of throwing Republicans out as the majority party in the U.S. Senate, only underscores the additional irony that it is Republican voters who are Obamacare’s prime beneficiaries. While GOP voters may be critical of Obamacare because they fail to understand it, they are disproportionately helped by the program.

An Urban Institute study on who would lose insurance if the Supreme Court declares the federal tax credits illegal, found that white lower and middle-income Southerners would be the biggest losers if the Obamacare subsidies are eliminated.

Can Democrats Retake the Senate in 2016?

While most political pundits are busy focusing on the 2016 presidential election, another serious issue has gained less attention: whether the Democrats can retake the U.S. Senate and provide a bulwark against the worse case scenario of a Republican in the White House.   The House of Representatives with its gerrymandered districts is likely a lost cause until after the 2020 census and further redistricting thereafter.  A piece in Politico Magazine by my UVA class of 1974 classmate, Larry Sabato, looks at the 2016 Senate races.  Here are highlights:

It’s still too early to predict the Senate’s makeup in 2016, but it’s not too early to start thinking about who could land on the list of endangered senators. And in the 2016 cycle, it’s more likely to be a Republican than a Democrat.

In 2016, the Republicans seem to have their backs to the wall, defending 24 seats to the Democrats’ 10. Just two Democratic seats—Harry Reid’s in Nevada and Michael Bennet’s in Colorado—are not solid, both in states where the GOP surged in 2014. In the Silver State, Republican Brian Sandoval would start as the frontrunner if he decided to challenge Reid, though the recently-reelected governor appears unlikely to run. It’s also not impossible that Reid, who says he will seek re-election, ultimately decides to retire. There are several potential Bennet opponents, such as Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, but no one that immediately suggests the incumbent is doomed. Moreover, both Reid and Bennet have an ace to play: Presidential level turnout will draw out a much larger group of Democratic voters, especially Hispanics and the young, than we saw in 2014.

Meanwhile, Republicans must defend seven incumbents that represent states carried by President Obama in 2008 and 2012: Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Rob Portman of Ohio, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. An eighth state Obama carried in 2008 but narrowly lost in 2012—North Carolina, home to two-term Republican Richard Burr—also merits mention with these other states.

But under the right conditions—i.e., strong Democratic Senate candidates combined with a solid national lead for the Democratic presidential nominee—all seven of the other seats are vulnerable. Three of the states (Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) are more Democratic than the nation as a whole and have a history of voting Democratic for president even when the party loses a close race nationally, as in 2000 and 2004. This reality has placed Kirk, Toomey and Johnson at the top of the endangered senators list.

All Democrats have to do to re-take the Senate is to win the three yellow toss-up states where they have a natural advantage, plus a couple of the current “lean Republican” states that have voted for Obama. And Democrats will need only one “lean R” state if the party wins the White House, guaranteeing that a Democratic vice president would break a 50-50 Senate tie.

[A]nother Senate flip in 2016, this time to the Democrats, isn’t difficult to imagine, but it’s far from a sure thing.

Will the Democrats Look to a Kennedy for a Boost?

In the wake of last Tuesday's horrific results, Democrats are casting about for some fresh leadership to energize the party base - and campaign donors.  Two names are being bandied about: Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro and Massachusetts Rep. Joe Kennedy (Kennedy is pictured above).  Politico looks at the maneuvering and souls searching.  Here are excerpts:

After a nationwide thumping that leaves them with their smallest House minority in over 80 years, Democratic leaders are considering two rising stars in the party — Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro and Massachusetts Rep. Joe Kennedy — to lead a 2016 recovery effort.

Senior Democratic aides say the two have emerged as strong possibilities to take on the role of chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, a critical position tasked with overseeing the party’s political apparatus in the next election. The selection of either man by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, 74, would be designed to give House Democrats, who lack an obvious path back to power, a badly needed infusion of energy and excitement, not to mention fundraising prowess.

Castro, 40, and his twin brother Julian Castro, the Housing and Urban Development secretary and former San Antonio mayor, are widely seen as the party’s future leaders in Texas. They took their star turn at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, when the Stanford-and-Harvard-educated Joaquin Castro, a former state legislator, introduced his brother, who gave the keynote speech. Julian Castro is one of the highest profile Hispanic figures in the Democratic Party and has been mentioned as a possible 2016 vice presidential pick.

If Kennedy, the 34-year-old grandson of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, were chosen, it would be the second time in just over a decade that a Kennedy has chaired the committee . . . In the weeks leading up to the midterms, Joe Kennedy, a Harvard Law-educated former prosecutor, doled out thousands of dollars to candidates.

The high-wattage Castro and Kennedy surnames would also presumably help with fundraising — perhaps the most important component of the job — at a challenging time to persuade donors to open their wallets, given the long odds of Democrats winning back the House in two years.

While Castro and Kennedy have obvious assets, they also have drawbacks. Castro, Democratic aides say, may be more interested in positioning himself for an eventual statewide campaign than immersing himself in the minutiae of congressional politics. And while many are talking up Kennedy, one of the youngest House Democrats, as a future leader, that time may not be now.

Tapping either could also ruffle the feathers of more senior lawmakers who’ve been eyeing the slot. Castro and Kennedy, who were reelected last week, are only finishing their first terms.

Call me shallow, but I might shell out some money to attend an event with Joe Kennedy. :)

Will the Feds Investigate Chris Christie?

As the day has gone by the circus surrounding Chris Christie and "bridgegate" as some have coined it  seems to keep growing.  One of Christie's aids has taken the 5th Amendment and now their is talk of a federal investigation.  If Christie is shown to have been involved, along with Virginia's Bob McDonnell's "giftgate" demise, it may become a case study on how to destroy one's political future.  Here are highlights from the New York Times:

In a remarkable day of swirling political drama, Gov. Chris Christie tried on Thursday to control the damage from revelations that his administration ordered the revenge-closings of traffic lanes at the George Washington Bridge by firing a top aide, cutting ties with a longtime political adviser and repeatedly apologizing in a nearly two-hour news conference. 

Sounding somber and appearing contrite, the normally garrulous Mr. Christie said he had had no advance knowledge of the lane closings and had been “humiliated” by the entire episode.

Mr. Christie’s emotional news conference unfolded as the United States attorney began an investigation and as — just down the hall — a former associate who was involved in the lane closings refused to answer questions posed by Democrats investigating the matter, saying that he would tell his story only under immunity from prosecution. 

The Democrats promised to release more documents on Friday morning and issue more subpoenas of Christie aides. And the national news media that has so far bathed Mr. Christie in a distant, generally positive light descended on his doorstep here with a phalanx of television cameras and harsh speculation about whether the scandal would hurt his aspirations to be the Republican nominee for president in 2016.

Mr. Christie fired Bridget Anne Kelly, the deputy chief of staff who sent an email approving the lane closings, whom he called “stupid” and “deceitful.” Her deception, he said, led him to mislead the public, but he did so unwittingly. 

He also asked his two-time campaign manager, Bill Stepien, to step down as a consultant to the Republican Governors Association and to withdraw his name from consideration to lead the state Republican Party.

Democrats argued that the increasing number of resignations and dismissals — two other aides resigned in December — and the names of the governor’s staff members on the emails made it hard to believe that the pettiness was, as the governor argued, “the exception and not the rule” of his administration.

“I find it hard to believe that Bridget Kelly on her own came up with the idea to divert traffic lanes in Fort Lee,” said Assemblyman John Wisniewski, a Democrat who has been leading the investigation.

“You have an administration that is very hands-on,” he said. “It strains credibility to say that somebody in as high a position as a deputy chief of staff, somebody in as high a position as the governor’s principal spokesperson, somebody in as high a position as his campaign manager, all of whose names are in these emails, didn’t ever communicate this to the governor.”

The United States attorney for New Jersey, Paul J. Fishman, opened an inquiry after the matter was referred to his office by the inspector general for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Some legal experts, however, said it was difficult to imagine how the scandal could yield criminal charges.

The fallout from the release of the emails, which are as brazen as they are blunt, reverberated nationally, threatening to undermine Mr. Christie’s carefully cultivated image.

The controversy is unlikely to abate anytime soon, with New Jersey Democrats vowing to subpoena everyone mentioned in the emails. The State Assembly on Friday will release an additional 900 pages of documents turned over by David Wildstein, a high school friend of Mr. Christie’s who worked at the Port Authority, which could continue to produce more embarrassing revelations.

Has Obama's Weakness Set the Stage for Hillary?

For many, Barrack Obama's presidency has been a huge disappointment.  From "leading from behind" to seemingly always capitulating to Republicans, many see his presidency as a string of lost opportunities.  That's not to say that there have not been successes.  There have.  But could there have been more if Obama had displayed more backbone.  That's what many Democrats wonder.  Some, such as conservative columnist David Frum, believe that this may all play out to Hillary Clinton's benefit in the lead up to 2016.  Here are highlights from Frum's column in The Daily Beast:

Few of these liberal and Democratic critics think Obama's heart is in the wrong place. They support much of his record, admire his values, take pride in the symbolism of his victory. But they wonder, in the words of a MoveOn.org video ad, "What's happened to that bold progressive man we elected president in 2008?" With MoveOn, they are pleading, "please fight" to a president they see as fatally yielding.

In this mood, Democrats may care a lot more about toughness and combativeness than about minute gradations of progressiveness. And about Hillary Clinton's combativeness, nobody has ever had any doubts. . . . .  "Standing up strong" is what Democrats will be looking for in 2016. Affect will matter more than policy, and Hillary Clinton has the affect of the tough and decisive leader.

To woo progressive Democrats, Hillary Clinton does not need to deploy a radical policy platform. She needs to go toe-to-toe with Republicans. She needs to breathe fire. She needs to reassure her party that she doesn't believe that discredited old junk about "no red states and no blue states." Democrats now accept that the divide is real, and in their politicians as in their preferred cable channel, they are looking for champions willing to take heat and return fire. The details of each candidate's health care platform will matter a lot less than the candidate's eagerness for the fight.

Five years ago, Hillary Clinton sparked controversy by remarking that Martin Luther King's dream only became a reality when Lyndon Johnson forced the Civil Rights bill of 1964 through Congress. "It took a president to get it done." Obama supporters seized on Clinton's words as a slight against Martin Luther King. A political cycle later, progressive Democrats may feel new respect for LBJ's ability to get things done.

Peter Beinart's analysis of the cultural moment is astute. But be careful about over-predicting big sweeping new political changes. Democrats tried that in 2008. And what they'll be looking for in their next leader will be much less the ability to touch the nation's heart, and much more the ability to apply the knee to her Republican opponents' groins.

The GOP Swamp Fever Worsens

As a former Republican from a family that once was almost unanimously Republican, watching the GOP become something that would make the inmates of an insane asylum look rational is disturbing.  Greed, intense hatred of those who are "other," an utter contempt for the less fortunate, and far right religious extremism are the hallmarks of today's GOP.  And driving this sickness is the party base dominated by Christofascists, white supremacists and Tea Party extremists.  Even worse, as the party lurches to the insane right, more and more moderates are fleeing leaving the inmates in the asylum as the king makers in terms of nominating candidates.  Andrew Sullivan looks at the phenomenon and summarizes the increasingly frightening aspects of the GOP as it exists today.  Here are highlights:

We have watched the possibility of Republican support for immigration reform rise and then dramatically fall, as Tom Edsall explains here in charting the decline in the fortunes of Marco Rubio as soon as he stood up for a path to citizenship. Christianists are seeking to end the ban on tax-exempt churches’ endorsing candidates. The recent Pew report found the following among regular Republican primary voters (in Edsall’s words):

Republicans who say that they always vote in primaries (and whose views consequently carry more weight) are much more in favor of their party’s turning in a more conservative direction. Data provided to the Times by Pew shows that 58 percent of Republicans who always vote in primaries advocate more conservative stands, while 37 percent call for moderation, a 21-point split. 

Insofar as support or opposition to immigration reform is a proxy for more or less positive attitudes toward Hispanics, the Pew study shows a decided tilt among Republicans. Thirty-six percent of Republican voters say that the party’s stance toward immigration is not conservative enough, compared with 17 percent who say it is too conservative. Crucially, among Republicans who always vote in primaries, the division shifts further to the right, 41-14.

In North Carolina, the state GOP has launched a brazen attempt to disenfranchise minority voters, acting more like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood when they came to power rather than a moderate Western political party. And in Washington, Robert Costa is reporting that the House GOP won’t force a government shutdown this fall but that they will “instead use the debt limit and sequester fights as areas for potential legislative trades.” They are going to hold America’s credit-worthiness hostage again – even though such a debt limit crisis would be far more damaging to the economy than even a shutdown, as Chait notes here. But perhaps damaging the economy is the point. The GOP has to minimize any economic growth that might redound to Obama’s benefit - in order to discredit the policies that have obviously worked for the past five years in favor of policies that have been proven failures elsewhere.
 
We now have pretty solid evidence that the GOP will respond to Obama’s second term exactly as they did his first: total opposition to everything and anything the president supports, sabotage of the economy, and brutal gerry-mandering and voter suppression to give their white base one last chance at a majority. Actual policies? It’s hard to disagree with Newt Gingrich – and not just on healthcare.

I predicted it would get worse before it got better; what we now learn is that it will get worse before it gets worse before it gets better. And the real beneficiaries of this will likely not be the GOP – but Roger Ailes and Hillary Clinton.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the GOP base lives in some bizarre alternate reality.    The base only hears to bubble echo chamber of Fox News and demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and would not recognize objective reality if it smacked them in the face.  I personally question the sanity of more and more of the GOP base.