Today at the American Spectator, David Catron surveys those districts and points out which specific Dems are most vulnerable: Impeachment Vote Will Cost These Dems Their Seats--They ran as moderates in swing districts yet voted like radicals. He closes with these observations:
And the beat goes on. In addition to the 12 listed above, there are 18 more Democrats clinging to districts that Trump won in 2016. That brings the total to 30. As noted above, the Republicans need to flip slightly more than half of these to retake the House. Moreover, the GOP is awash in campaign cash. As Open Secrets reports, “RNC continues to dwarf DNC in fundraising.” This means that the GOP project of retaking the House will enjoy three major advantages — a target-rich environment, the ability to fund any campaign that shows real promise, and the moral high ground associated with defeating an attempt to oust a president whose faults just do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
All of this brings us back to Thursday’s hyper-partisan vote and the resolution that purports to lay out the framework for the next phase of the “impeachment inquiry” launched by fiat during a news conference last month. This resolution, departing from 150 years of historical precedent, endows the House Intelligence Committee with extraordinary power over the inquiry, codifies Adam Schiff’s closed-door hearings, severely limits the powers of the Republican minority, and violates the president’s right to due process. The Democrats whose districts were won by Trump in 2016 have signed their own political death warrants by voting for this tawdry resolution. Execution day will be November 3, 2020.
Liz Peek at Fox News approaches the same general idea from a somewhat different, though related, perspective--Two Pelosi errors that could cost Democrats the election in 2020. Those two errors were:
The first was putting Adam Schiff in charge of the impeachment inquiry. The second is not reining in the so-called Squad, or the four female freshmen Democrats whose extreme progressive voices have helped push the Democrat party to the left, alienating much of the country.
Peek then goes on to explain the likely results of these errors:
Normally, the Judiciary Committee oversees an impeachment investigation. Admittedly, having watched Jerry Nadler, who heads that committee, make a complete hash of recent hearings on the Mueller report, Pelosi was in a tough spot.
Still, Schiff is toxic, and she knew that. Schiff’s aggressive and dishonest posture on the Russiagate probe has earned him the enmity of Republicans. A number of times Schiff claimed to have “proof” of Trump’s guilt, only to later come up short. Even after Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report, stating he found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, Schiff doggedly insisted in an interview, “Undoubtedly there is collusion…”
That was a serious error. As head of the impeachment probe, Schiff lied again, saying he had had no contact with the “whistleblower” that kicked off the investigation, when in fact he had. Many Republicans believe that Schiff coordinated with the anonymous accuser to mount the attack on the president. They also charge him with presiding over an unfair process, holding closed-door hearings and leaking only those tidbits favorable to Democrats.
Having opposed taking a full House vote authorizing the investigation, Pelosi finally succumbed to the public outcry demanding transparency, and held a vote last week. The vote on a process resolution revealed some fracturing of her caucus, which includes 30 seats held in Trump-won districts. That was an uncomfortable vote for those representatives; two voted against the impeachment drive.
As the inquiry moves into a more public phase, voters will likely tire of endless TV-broadcast interviews and breathless reporting that unearths no new information. ... Then they will begin to question how much taxpayer time and money is sunk into an impeachment investigation that is politically motivated and that, barring any new smoking guns, will die in the Senate.
They will then ask Democrats: what have you done for us lately? Have you passed the Mexico-Canada-US trade deal? Have you worked on infrastructure?
Voters know what President Trump has done for them. They see it weekly in their paychecks, they see it when it comes time to sell their house and the price has gone up. They see it when they want to switch jobs, and find plenty to choose from, or when it comes time to tap their IRAs.
In November 2020, voters will be asked again: Are you better off than you were four years ago? And then they will reelect Donald Trump.So, with that in mind, take a look at some recent NYT/Siena polling. Guy Benson analyzes it, and here's his takeaway: Oh My: Fresh NYT Polling Shows Trump Leading or Highly Competitive in Every Swing State.
Here's the analysis:
It has been a very turbulent few weeks for President Trump, who has watched his national support tumble as he faces impeachment at the hands of House Democrats. But even as nationwide polling shows him in relatively rough shape among all voters on the issue of impeachment (though it's not as bleak as the press coverage would indicate), surveys of voters in key swing states show far less enthusiasm over the prospect of removing Trump from office. Similarly, even as Trump's average job approval rating sags, and even as he trails multiple Democrats in hypothetical head-to-head contests, his standing in the places that will matter the most next November is much stronger than the conventional wisdom would suggest.
This terrifying NYT/Sienna poll—one year out from the election—should prompt some major soul-searching among my blue bubble-dwelling friends. https://t.co/LMeWKCYuj3 pic.twitter.com/AI0VpSZjsg— Adam Twardowski (@TwardowskiDC) November 4, 2019
Sanders looks like he'd enter a toss-up race; Warren appears to be a clear underdog, in spite of the incumbent's very soft approval and favorability. This chart from the data is really fascinating:
This is stark pic.twitter.com/BgtzCLJPTm— Matt Lewis (@mattklewis) November 4, 2019
Trump's large advantage among non-college-educated whites is undiminished against all of the 'big three' Democrats, with Biden and Sanders performing marginally better. But in terms of re-creating Hillary Clinton's near-victory coalition, Biden builds on her support among college-educated whites, and approximately holds serve among blacks, Hispanics and other minority groups. Sanders is a mixed bag, but is notably underperforming Hillary by ten percentage points with African American voters. Warren hits her mark among college whites, but dramatically under-performs Mrs. Clinton with all other groups. Direct hypothetical match-ups are very premature at this stage of the game, but these NYT/Siena findings are useful in that they serve as a serious reminder that even though Trump is at a low ebb in his presidency, and even though many of the national numbers look ugly for him, he could prove quite difficult to beat.
Plug that into some stats from a recent Trump rally, in Tupelo, Mississippi, and things get really scary for Dems:
Data from Friday’s Mississippi rally:— Brad Parscale (@parscale) November 4, 2019
✅ 16,432 voters identified
✅ 24% voted once or less in last 4 elections (12% in zero)
✅ 27% Democrat
✅ 20% Black
More winning numbers that will help secure #FourMoreYears for @realDonaldTrump!
Continue to outperform 2016.
UPDATE: OMG! Read Don Surber on how big money Dems are telling Chuck Schumer they're not giving to Dem Senate campaigns: Warren hurts Democrats.
They [fat cats] had pinned their hopes on Biden, an easily rented politician -- just leave the money on Hunter's dresser when you are finished. But Biden falters because he is an idiot who is in the opening stages of dementia.
The story said, "His once-double-digit lead in Real Clear Politics’ national polling average has him up an average of nearly nine points over Warren, who had briefly overtaken Biden last month. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday has Biden up four points over the Massachusetts senator."
The deal with Wall Street is simple.
Democrats can say what they want about Wall Street to get elected, but if they ever do anything, Democrats are dead to Wall Street.
Nominating Warren worries them, which complicates matters if the fat cats think she has a chance. Democrats may go with the safe choice, Pete Buttigieg.
How about that?
He can blame his loss on homophobia, and if he wins, he won't put heat on the money men.