More bad news for the GOP, from Kyle Kondik’s update “The House: Ratings Changes in the Aftermath of Another Nail-Biter Special Election: GOP likely holds on in OH-12, but narrow result and other developments Tuesday reinforce positive Democratic trends” at The Crystal Ball: “The Democrats now have 203 seats at least leaning to them, the Republicans have 198 at least leaning to them, and there are 34 Toss-ups. Based on our current ratings, the Democrats no longer have to win a majority of the Toss-ups to win the House — 15 of 34 would now do the trick — although Republicans hope that some of our Leans Democratic seats are rated too bearishly for their side. There is always a chance that something could happen to change the current dynamic, but nothing that happened Tuesday night suggested that the pro-Democratic trend we’ve seen throughout the cycle is eroding. The election is less than three months away now.”

At The Princeton  Election Consortium, Sam Wang’s “OH-12 is ominous for GOP in House…and the Senate” notes, “In 46 special elections in 2018, the overall swing from 2016 has averaged 12 points toward Democrats. Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote by a little over 2 percentage points. If this swing were to hold up in November 2018, it would mean a 14-point win in the national House popular vote. I estimate that a 6-point win would be just enough to flip control. A 14-point win is massive, enough for a gain of over 50 seats.”

Frank Bruni urges “Democrats, Do Not Give Up on the Senate: The party’s odds aren’t great, but they look better all the time” in his New York Times column, and argues, “But I wouldn’t give up on it, because a Democratic majority in the Senate means more than one in the House (Supreme Court, anyone?), and there really is a rationale for hope…It starts with the general political climate and Trump’s approval rating, which never crests 45 percent. Sad! Recent polls have shown that in congressional races, voters prefer a generic Democrat to a generic Republican by six to 10 points. That’s wave territory, and Democrats are favored by the historical patterns of midterms…The party needs to pick up two seats. It has more than two states to turn to. For a while now, Jacky Rosen in ever-bluer Nevada has been scaring the bejesus out of the Republican incumbent, Dean Heller. More recently, Kyrsten Sinema in reddish Arizona and Phil Bredesen in redder Tennesseehave emerged as fearsome contenders for seats being vacated by Trump-averse Republicans (Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, respectively).”

Ruy Teixeira writes on his Facebook page, “Why did Democratic support spike in Franklin county in OH-12 last Tuesday? I have a feeling it has a lot to do with the data on the far right hand side of this chart[below]. No wonder smart Republicans like Sean Trende are getting nervous.”

“The biggest strategic challenge [Democrats] have will come in September and October when they’ve got to make a decision whether some races are now in the safe column and they can divert resources to lean-Republican races,” said former Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), quoted in “Dems eyeing smaller magic number for House majority” by Scott Wong nd Mike Lillis at The Hill. “It’s way too early to make those decisions,” added Israel, who led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) from 2011 to 2014…“Without the redistricting firewall that they built, Republicans would probably lose 60 seats in this kind of cycle,” Israel said. “As a result of the redistricting firewall that they built, they could lose about half of that.”

Some statistics to consider about the contest for Georgia governorship, from Thomas B. Edsall’s column, “The Democratic Party Has Two Futures: Candidates in different states are testing out the electoral power of the left and the center” at The New York Times: “The black share of the Georgia electorate has been growing rapidly. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that the number of African-Americans voting in the May primary grew by 43 percent between 2010 and 2018, while white voters declined 9 percent. In 2017, the state population was 52.8 percent white — on the cusp of turning majority minority.”

Edsall also notes, however, that “In an analysis of Democratic primaries through July 12, Brookings found that establishment candidates had won 88 and progressive candidates had won 64. The results from Tuesday now increase the share won by establishment candidates.”

“Nearly half — 46 percent — of registered voters younger than 30 said they are “absolutely certain to vote,” according to Post-ABC polls averaging across polls in January and April. And more than 6 in 10 millennials ages 22 to 38 said they are “looking forward” to midterm elections in a recent Pew Research Center survey. That number was 46 percent in 2014 and 39 percent in 2010…Relying on young voters — particularly those enrolled in college — may not be the best strategy,” argues Eugene Scott in “There’s optimism college students could deliver in Ohio in the fall. Is that realistic?” at The Fix. “Washington Post polling analyst Emily Guskin did a deep dive on the uptick in voter registration for 18- to 29-year-olds. It has not been as significant as some expected after the politically charged Parkland, Fla., school shooting earlier this year. Many people who register to vote do not show up on Election Day, and young people are by far the least likely age group to cast ballots, especially in midterm elections. The United States Elections Project analyzed U.S. Census Bureau data tracking turnout in midterm elections since 1986 and found that 16 percent of eligible voters ages 18 to 29 turned out to vote in the 2014 midterms. It was the lowest for any election since 1986, though turnout among this age group was never higher than 21 percent in midterms over this period.”

There’s no substitute for in-person engagement for both base mobilization and winning over swing voters. But Democratic campaigns should also take a look at “How RumbleUp is Powering the Republican Texting Revolution: When it comes to campaign technology, Democrats invent, Republicans perfect.” by Thomas Peters at Campaigns & Elections. His article provides a clear picture of how the opposition is planning to reach younger voters in particular, and it shows what some of their text messages look like.

Democrat Danny O’Connor trails by less than 1 percent in the vote count for the special election in OH-12. As Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns explain in “Republican Holds Slim Lead in Ohio Special Election for House Seat” at The New York Times,

O’Connor has not conceded as of this writing, and Republicans are still nervous about the final tally, as well as the November rematch.

In his slate.com post, “The Results in Ohio Bode Poorly for Republicans, Regardless of Who Wins, Josh Vorhees notes:

As for its bearing on the midterms, though, this race has already told us pretty much everything it can. Donald Trump won the district by 11 points two years ago, and Democrats haven’t represented it in Congress in three-plus decades. That the contest turned out to be as close as it did is shocking, regardless of who wins—or it would have been shocking, anyway, if it weren’t for the surprises of the previous 10 federal elections since Trump took office. Democrats have performed better, often way better, than the makeup of their respective electorates would predict. That was true in Pennsylvania, where Conor Lamb beat the partisan lean of his district (as measured by FiveThirtyEight) by 22 points to win his congressional race by a few tenths of a point. It was true in South Carolina, where Archie Parnell beat the lean by 16 points, to come up only 3 points short. And it’s true in Ohio, where O’Connor is on pace to beat expectations by about 13 points.

In his Poltico post, “Democrats surging on eve of pivotal special election: Republicans have deployed the full machinery of the party to avoid defeat in the final special election before the midterms.” Alex Isenstadt writes that the Republicans are extremely worried about losing OH-12 to the young Democratic candidate Danny O’Connor. In addition to Trump and Kemp campaigning in the district for the lackluster GOP candidate Troy Balderson, “The Republican National Committee has opened two offices in the district, launched a $500,000-plus get-out-the-vote effort, and dispatched one of its top officials, Bob Paduchik, who ran Trump’s 2016 Ohio campaign. And outside conservative groups, led by a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul Ryan, have dumped more than $3.5 million onto the TV airwaves, far outpacing Democrats…The all-out push underscores the GOP’s trepidation about the final special election before the midterms. A loss, following startling Republican defeats in Pennsylvania and Alabama, would offer more evidence that a blue wave is on the horizon…Those worries intensified on Saturday morning when, just hours before the rally, Trump took to Twitter to attack NBA legend LeBron James, an Ohio favorite son who recently opened a public school in Akron for at-risk youth.” The latest Monmouth University poll indicates a statistical tie between the candidates, and Trump’s aproval rating in the district is 46 percent, down from 52 percent in 2016.

At The New York Times, Alexander Burns writes, “Most polling for both parties has shown a slim advantage for Mr. Balderson, 56, an auto dealer-turned-state legislator with a wooden public demeanor. But Republicans see his position as precarious in a season when Democrats are voting with passionate enthusiasm. And Democratic attacks on Mr. Balderson — for telling the Columbus Dispatch newspaper that he might support raising the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare — have wounded him…That there is uncertainty about Tuesday’s election to begin with is a source of grave anxiety for Republicans, and even victory might not allay it. The district has elected Republicans to Congress for decades and favored Mr. Trump in 2016 by 11 percentage points, surpassing his powerful margin statewide…And Mr. O’Connor, the Democrat, has attempted to channel a nonthreatening kind of indignation, trumpeting broadly appealing themes like protecting government-backed retirement benefits, rejecting corporate donations and promoting “new leadership” in Washington.”

A Danny O’Connor Ad:

“Most strategists and analysts say this November’s midterms will be determined by turnout. According to this view, whichever party more fully energizes its partisans will come out on top. New data, though, shows this common wisdom has it exactly backward. It’s the voters who sit between the two parties, not the party bases, who will choose which party wins…That’s a surprising finding from the most recent Democracy Fund Voter Study Group poll. This biannual poll, which asks thousands of Americans their views on issues, personalities and voting intentions, has been querying the same people their views going back to 2011 (in the polling world, this is known as a longitudinal survey). That means it is large enough and has the right sort of questions to do what most polls can’t: report accurately on small groups within the overall electorate…These dynamics will be on clear display in Tuesday’s special election in Ohio’s 12th Congressional District. The seat is split between an affluent, educated core that has loads of Romney-Clinton voters (Delaware and Franklin Counties) and five small-town and rural counties that have lots of Obama-Trump voters…The Democrat Danny O’Connor’s campaign has skillfully played to this divide. His ads emphasize working across the aisle to find common ground and note that “we need new leadership in both parties.” Winning control of the House and Senate means Democrats have to fight on Republican turf, and that means talking to Romney-Clinton and Obama-Trump voters. How well they can talk to both at the same time — and how well Republicans do among the same groups — will determine whether we see a blue wave or another case of Democratic despair.” — From “The Voters Who Will Decide the Midterms,” a New York Times op-ed by Henry Olsen, editor of the “Flyover Country” section at UnHerd.com, is the director and a co-founder of the Voter Study Group.

Vox’s Dylan Scott explores O’Connor’s growing support, and notes, “Even if he’s skeptical of single-payer, O’Connor talks a lot about expanding access to health care. In his campaign office, almost every sign adorning the walls is about stopping the GOP war on Medicaid or protecting the Affordable Care Act. His mom is a cancer survivor, and he is focused on protecting preexisting conditions. Balderson, the Republican in the race, opposed Ohio’s Medicaid expansion and is running on repealing Obamacare…“I haven’t seen a [single-payer] proposal that’s gonna move the needle, whether it’s budgetarily or coverage-wise,” he said. “I think voters here are more focused on protecting their access now, not the political jargon and all these catchphrases that have been poll-tested and are proposed by people in Washington, DC..But where O’Connor differs from moderate Democrats of the past — and from Republican now — is he refuses to entertain cuts to Social Security and Medicare; his campaign ads hit Balderson over GOP proposals to do so. He’s proud of his F-rating from the National Rifle Association.”

“Politics is regularly described in terms of “left” vs. “right,” observes E. J. Dionne, Jr. in his syndicated column, “Forget left and right. This is what will determine the midterms” at The Washington Post. “But other binaries can be more relevant. “Forward” vs. “backward” often define a choice facing an electorate better than the standard ideological categories. And the most powerful faceoff of all may be “reform” vs. “corruption.”…Much commentary on the 2018 midterm campaign has focused on a drift or a lurch left in the Democratic Party, the measurement of the port-side tilt varying from analyst to analyst. In fact, more moderate progressives have done very well in the primaries so far, but Democrats are certainly less enamored of centrism than they were during the 1990s…What is missed in this sort of analysis is that many, maybe most, of us don’t think in simple left/right terms, and countless issues are not cleanly identified this way. The same is true of elections. When the returns are tallied in November, the results may be better explained by the reform/corruption dynamic than any other.”

Further, adds Dionne, “The advantages of the corruption issue are (1) “corrupt” really is the right word to describe the Trump administration; (2) a concern over corruption transcends philosophical dispositions; and (3) the failure to “drain the swamp” is one of President Trump’s most obvious broken promises. Instead, Trump has turned the swamp into an immense toxic-waste dump. The stench emanates from Cabinet officials driven from office by egregious behavior and from Trump’s own violations of long-standing norms limiting business dealings by presidents and their families…But the corruption issue goes beyond meat-and-potatoes sleaze. Our democracy itself is in danger from the overpowering influence of money on our politics, unchecked foreign intervention in our elections and an increasing willingness of Republicans to bias the system in their favor through gerrymandering and restrictions on access to the ballot.”

“The single-payer Democrats are on the ballot in red and blue states and from California, where Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is the heavy favorite to win in November, to Massachusetts, where Democrat Jay Gonzalez believes the issue will give him an opening against a popular Republican governor,” writes David Weigel at PowerPost…“There are going to be bills about this in dozens of states,” said Sam Munger, a spokesman for the liberal State Innovation Exchange who added that there has been a surge of single-payer legislation since the start of 2017. “Ninety percent of those bills won’t go anywhere, but people are pushing the spectrum of debate. Expanding health care, however they want to do it, is one of the top-testing messages we see in polls…While Democrats running for the House and Senate talk about Medicare for all in aspirational terms, as a post-Trump national goal, liberal candidates for governor suggest that their states could quickly become laboratories for universal coverage.”

Sher Watts Spooner explains why “2018 is the year of Democratic women—but not only candidates” at Daily Kos: “The elections in 2018 are turning out to be the Year of the Woman, but it’s not just women candidates running as Democrats. It’s women voting in big numbers. It’s women donating money to candidates—lots of money. More than anything else, it’s about women having their voices heard…No longer are women candidates afraid to speak out on all issues. They’re proud of touting their military service. And they’re also not afraid to talk about a double standard for women candidates…Suddenly the media are full of stories about the number of Democratic women running and winning primaries. About how the midterms could feature a record gender gap between men and women voters. About how women are establishing “giving circles” to make sure candidates are funded and to give more interested women a way to get involved.” Spoonoer quyotes a CNN story: “In the average poll since June, Democrats are leading among women by an average 20-percentage point margin compared to trailing among men by 6 points. If this holds, this would be the largest margin that Democrats would win women by in a midterm election since at least 1958…One clear advantage of doing better among women voters though is that they almost always represent a larger percentage of the electorate than men do.”

The Republican Party has become so extreme that Democrats can win midterm support from voters as a result of GOP positions on any of a long list of issues. But if Democrats had to pick one issue to focus on, in most cases it would be health care in general, and the Republicans gutting coverage for pre-existing conditions in particular.

As Robert Pear explains at The New York Times:

The Trump administration issued a final rule on Wednesday that clears the way for the sale of many more health insurance policies that do not comply with the Affordable Care Act and do not have to cover prescription drugs, maternity care or people with pre-existing medical conditions…Democrats derided the new policies as “junk insurance” that will lure healthy people away from the broader insurance market, raising premiums for sicker people and putting purchasers at risk.

…People who buy the new policies and develop cancer could “face astronomical costs” and “may be forced to forgo treatment entirely because of costs,” said Chris Hansen, the president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

…In the past year, the Trump administration has also cut funds for groups that help people sign up for coverage; ended cost-sharing subsidies paid to insurers on behalf of low-income people; and asked a federal court to throw out parts of the Affordable Care Act, including the popular protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

More than a quarter of working-age adults have a pre-existing health condition, like asthma, diabetes or cancer, that might have locked them out of the insurance market in the years before Obamacare, according to research from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Surveys show that far more have a friend or family member with a serious medical problem. Because health problems tend to pile up as people age, the older voters who tend to turn out most reliably in midterm elections experience such worry disproportionately.

Both types of insurance can sidestep the ACA’s requirement that health plans sold to individuals and small businesses must include 10 categories of benefits, including maternity care and mental-health services. Both can have bigger price differences between older customers and younger ones. But only the short-term plans also can charge higher prices to customers with medical conditions that require care, refuse to sell them a policy, or exclude coverage of health problems that a customer had before buying the insurance. The ACA bans such practices.

After nearly a decade of playing defense on the issue, Democratic congressional candidates around the country are putting a health care message at the center of their campaigns. After the Republicans’ failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Democrats have detected a newfound concern that the consumer protections established under the law might go away. And that fear has turned into a potent campaign theme.

In his New York Magazine post, “Battle for the House: 100 Days Out, Democrats Are on the Brink,” Ed Kilgore notes, “All along, the conventional wisdom has been that Democrats need a lead of seven or eight points in the generic congressional ballot, an approximation of the House national popular vote, to feel reasonably confident of their chances. Their lead on the generic ballot is currently at 7.3 percent in the RealClearPolitics polling averages (it was as high as 13 percent last December and as low as 3 percent in the late spring), and 7.7 percentin the FiveThirtyEight averages (which weight polls according to their assessed quality and make adjustments for partisan bias). Typically the party that does not control the White House is likely to get a late breeze in its favor unless the president’s favorability markedly improves. At this point in 2014, Democrats led in most generic congressional polls, but then lost the national House popular vote by nearly 6 percent.”

“Donald Trump is “the worst politician ever” but he’s on a path to re-election because the Democratic party refuses to counter his courtship of working class disaffection, says the American political analyst and historian Thomas Frank…Frank said Trump was “uniquely dangerous” as a political figure, and that required the left to reconnect with working people to counter “the long turn of the American right towards populism…I am absolutely certain the way for a left party to beat that stuff is not to join it and bid for the bigot vote, but to counter fake populism with the real deal,” Frank said.” — From Katherine Murphy’s “Donald Trump, ‘worst politician ever’, on path to re-election, Thomas Frank says” at The Guardian.

fdrom ABC News The Powerhouse Roundtable:

Kyle Kondik’s “The House Tilts Toward the Democrats: Big-picture factors help minority party, but battle far from over; 17 ratings changes in favor of Democrats” at Sabato’s Crystal Ball notes some recent gains for Democras in the midterm camapign, including: “Democrats are now a little better than 50-50 to win the House. This is the first time this cycle we’ve gone beyond 50-50 odds on a House turnover…We’re making 17 House ratings changes this week, all in favor of the Democrats…One of those comes in OH-12, where the last nationally-watched special House election is taking place in a couple of weeks…Put it all together, and the Democrats now look like soft favorites to win a House majority with a little more than 100 days to go. The usual caveats apply: There is time for things to change, and the Democrats capturing the majority is not a slam dunk. We recently were discussing the House map with a source who recited reams of positive indicators and data for Democrats. After hearing those, we suggested that, based on what this person was saying, the Democrats should win the House with seats to spare. The source then said it will come down to just a few seats either way. By the way, such a close outcome — a House where the majority party has 220-225 seats or even less (218 is the number required for a bare majority) — remains a distinct possibility, and the presence of so many competitive House seats in California, where the vote count takes weeks to finalize, could delay the final House outcome.”

In his New York Times column, “The Rules for Beating Donald Trump: Don’t argue with 4.1 percent growth,” Bret Stephens argues “if you’re serious about wanting to defeat Trump, you might want to start with Rule No. 1: Don’t argue with sunshine. Don’t acknowledge good news through gritted teeth, or chortle at the president’s boastful delivery, or content yourself with the thought that Barack Obama also had some strong quarters and deserves all the credit…If working-class resentment was a factor in handing the White House to Trump, pooh-poohing of good economic news only feeds it.” Also, “Ignore Trump’s tweets. Yes, it’s unrealistic. But we would all be better off if the media reported them more rarely, reacted to them less strongly, and treated them with less alarm and more bemusement. Tweets are the means by which the president wrests control of the political narrative from the news media (and even his own administration), whether by inspiring his followers, goading his opponents, changing the subject, or merely causing a ruckus. There’s no way to stop him, but there’s no reason to amplify him.”

Matt Ford explains “How a Democratic House Could Really Give Trump Hell: And it has nothing to do with impeachment” at The New Republic: “On Thursday morning, [New Mexico U.S. Senator Tom] Udall was back at it, appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joesaying he would support legislation to force presidential candidates to publicly release their tax returns. “I think it’s very important that people know if there are conflicts of interest that the president might have, that we clear that up,” he replied. “The easiest thing to do here is just disclose all the tax returns.”…What Udall didn’t mention is that Congress doesn’t need legislation to release the president’s tax returns. If Democrats retake either the House or the Senate this fall members of the tax committees can obtain Trump’s tax returns directly from the IRS by using a provision in federal law that grants those committees special access to help craft legislation…By all accounts, Trump’s tax returns are being treated like something akin to a state secret. John Koskinan, who retired as IRS commissioner last year, told Politico even he didn’t have access to them. Under federal law, however, Congress’ tax committees can request a copy of any taxpayers’ returns directly from the IRS, ostensibly to aide in the development of a better tax code. An intrepid legislator could then publicize what they find in Trump’s tax returns by reading them aloud on the floor of Congress, just as Alaska Senator Mike Gravel did with the Pentagon Papers.”

At CNN Politics John King takes a look at “Why Democrats Are Optimistic About the Midterms“:

Trump is probably bluffing about the shutdown if he doesn’t get funding for his wall. For one thing it would jeopardize his Kavanaugh appointment, and for another it would call unwanted attention to his ridiculous bragg that he was going to make Mexico pay for the wall. Still, logic and common sense have rarely limited Trump’s statements, and Republicans are somewhat nervous about his shutdown talk. “We’re going to have a challenging midterm anyway, and I don’t see how putting the attention on shutting down the government when you control the government is going to help you,” Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, said in an interview,” reports Sheryl Gay Stohlberg at The New York Times.

James Hohman sounds a cautionary note in his PowerPost article, “The Daily 202: Puerto Ricans who fled to Florida after Hurricane Maria are not registering to vote.” As Hohman writes, “Hurricane Maria ravaged Puerto Rico last September and prompted a mass exodus of more than 100,000 residents to the mainland United States…The exact number is still not known, but tens of thousands of people permanently resettled in Florida…Because they’re already U.S. citizens, Puerto Ricans are eligible to vote as soon as they move to the mainland. The thinking last fall was that they’d be so angry at Trump that they’d be champing at the bit to vote against Republicans in the midterms. Operatives from both parties said that this could prove decisive in a perennial battleground like Florida where elections are always close…Once again, the conventional wisdom turns out to have been wrong. Trump appears to be defying the old rules of politics. In this case, it’s because most of the Puerto Ricans who have come to Florida are not registering to vote or otherwise getting involved in politics. At least for now…During the nine months after the hurricane — from last October through the end of June — there were 326,000 new registered voters. Just 21 percent were Hispanic. That’s a pretty small uptick — and not necessarily explained by Puerto Rican registration at all…in the two Orlando-area counties with the highest concentration of Puerto Ricans, there has not been any meaningful increase in Democratic registration.” It’s time for the Florida Democrats ‘A Team’ to take charge, launch a voter registration drive targeting recent Puerto Rican immigrants and get it done.

The race for Georgia governor is set with Democrat Stacy Abrams running against Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who won the GOP nomination on Tuesday. Sue Halpern’s article, “Trump, Election Hacking, and the Georgia Governor’s Race” at The New Yorker raises very disturbing questions about Kemp’s integrity as Georgia’s chief vote counter, as well as what his ‘shotgun ad’ indicates about his mental health: “Georgia is one of only five states that uses voting machines that create no paper record, and thus cannot be audited, and the Center for American Progress has given it a D grade for election security. But, when D.H.S. offered cybersecurity assistance, Kemp refused it… a group called the Coalition for Good Governance sued Kemp and other state officials for failing to insure a fair election, free from interference. They asked, among other things, that the court invalidate the special election. (Handel took her seat in Congress the week after the election.) The suit was filed on July 3rd [2017]. Four days later, the servers at the Center for Election Systems were wiped clean…On August 9th, less than twenty-four hours after the case was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, all the data on the Center’s backup servers were destroyed as well.” Abrams’s impressive margin in her Democratic primary victory indicates that she knows how to run an effective campaign. For those who want to help her level the playing field against Kemp’s corporate domors, here’s her ActBlue page.

Georgia has another contest of potential national importance, Democrat Lucy McBath’s campaign to unseat Karen Handel in GA-6. McBath has a decent chance here as a strong progressive and gun safety advocate in a year when it is a high-profile issue — she is the mother of a 17-year old son, Jordan Davis, who was killed in a horrific shooting by a white man. McBath’s Republican opponent, Handel, is another former Secretary of State (2007-09), who ran a suspicious project to purge “non-citizens” from the voter rolls, which provoked lawsuits by the Georgia ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. In addition to the incidents noted above questioning the conduct of Handel and Kemp in the office of the Georgia Secretary of State, it should be noted that the low-key Democrat Jon Ossoff received 48.1 percent of the vote in the first round election in his 2017 campaign to win the district — Handel got 19.8 percent in the first round and won the run-off by a margin of 51.7 to 48.2 percent. One Ossoff campaign worker noted that “We registered over 86,419 voter registration forms…and 40,000 of them are missing. And you know what they told us? “We don’t know what you’re talking about. What forms?” It seems that Georgia Democrats have a unique ‘Drain the swamp’ messaging opportunity in support of both the McBath and Abrams campaigns. Here’s Lucy Mcbath’s ActBlue page.

Michael Wear, author of author of “Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned in the Obama White House About the Future of Faith in America,” argues that “Democrats are entirely too focused on abortion” at The Monitor. “…Conservatives are primarily responsible for making “Supreme Court” another term for abortion politics. Now, Democrats are approaching the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh with the same singular focus. As MoveOn’s Washington director told the Associated Press, when it comes to Trump’s nominee, “the essential message is Roe.”…And yet voters and Democrats’ constituents have a broader set of constitutional concerns. Voting rights, immigration, workplace protections, environmental law and affirmative action are going to be at the mercy of the justices. …Does it help the party to make abortion rights such a predominant subject? Does it even help the pro-choice cause?…Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle may only make matters worse for Democrats. If the message the party delivers during the Senate hearings is single-mindedly focused on Roe and abortion rights, it may discourage support and turnout in many competitive districts crucial to switching the House and Senate from red to blue. (I’m thinking about states in the Southeast, the Rust Belt and Midwest, and even the Mountain West.)…Senate Democrats should forcefully test Kavanaugh’s fitness for the bench. But to the extent the Kavanaugh hearings are going to be a policy referendum, let’s be sure the nation hears from a party that is interested in more than just the fate of Roe v. Wade.”I think Wear is overstaing the case. Very few Democratic candidates are single-issue campaigners; it’s more that major media provides weak coverage of the other issues because they are too busy chasing Trump’s distractions du jour.

Regarding the current epidemic of hand-ringing about whether the Democrats are moving left too fast or holding on to the centrist policies too tightly, Ositu Newanevu shares some insights at slate.com, including “What do we actually know, nonanecdotally, about what kind of economic policies American voters want? For many years, Third Way has made a habit of waving around poll data showing very few Americans identify as liberals. “At the national level,” William Galston and Elaine Kamarck wrote in a report for the group called “The Still-Vital Center,” “self-identified liberals constitute barely one-fifth of the electorate; in most states, they are nowhere near a plurality—let alone a majority.” This has long been true. It has also long been true that when asked about specific proposals and political values, American voters are far more economically liberal than the numbers on ideological self-identification suggest.” Nwanevu comes down on the side of the Dem left critique. Looking at the bigger picture, a vigorous debate about whether policies are too far left or too centrist serves the cause of a healthy party, unlike the Republicans, most of whom cower in the shadows at every inane tweet by their unhinged leader.

In that same spirit, Sarah Larson’s “The Wilderness,” Reviewed: Can a Partisan Podcast Save the Democratic Party?,” also at The New Yorker, plugs Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau’s current project. Larson writes, “So much oxygen is consumed by Trump that it can be hard, for Democrats, to focus on that other problem: the Democratic Party. Democrats lost not only the 2016 Presidential election but, in the past six to eight years, some nine hundred seats nationwide. “The Wilderness,” Favreau’s ambitious new podcast about the Democratic Party, seeks to address that problem. It’s a fifteen-part series, narrative and documentary in form (it’s co-produced by Two-Up, of “36 Questions” and “Limetown”), that provides context about the Party and soul-searching about what Democrats should do next. It will conclude a few weeks before the midterms, giving newly motivated door-knockers and phone-bankers ample time to absorb its lessons. “It’s a show about us, about being honest with ourselves as Democrats,” Favreau says in an episode. “We have a lot to learn and a shitload of work to do.”

In her post, “Obama may be the only one who can heal the Democratic Party. But his presence could cost it votes” at nbcnews.com, Ashley Pratte mulls over the pros and cons of using the former president in midterm campaigns,” and comes up with this: “…Although Trump’s victory could be seen as a complete repudiation of Obama’s policies and his time in office, it’s possible that only the return of the still-popular former president could heal the party’s rifts from 2016 and help it return to power.” On the other hand, “There is one problem with keeping Obama at the helm of the Democratic Party — even if it is only behind the scenes — and that’s the fact that nothing energizes Republicans more than their distaste for Obama and his policies. If Republicans run on the idea that Obama is the puppet master (whether it be through his direct counsel or through his political committee, Organizing For Action), it will be enough to mobilize their own base and turn out the vote.” But Obama-haters were going to vote Republican anyway, and very few are going to think “I wasn’t going to vote, but since Obama out there again, I think I will.” Also, most Democratic candidates are smart enough to use the president when and where he can help. And lastly, Obama’s “Miss me yet?” star is rising every day, even among some who voted against him.

The Upshot staff has a fun, interactive map, “Political Bubbles and Hidden Diversity: Highlights From a Very Detailed Map of the 2016 Election” that provides a “A 90-second tour of 14 big cities.” The map “lets you explore the 2016 presidential election at the highest level of detail available: by voting precinct” and, “On the neighborhood level, many of us really do live in an electoral bubble, this map shows: More than one in five voters lived in a precinct where 80 percent of the two-party vote went to Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton. But the map also reveals surprising diversity…The election results most readers are familiar with are county maps like the ones we produce at The Times on election night. But votes are cast at a much finer unit of geography — in precincts, which may contain thousands of voters but in some cases contain only a handful. Our previous election maps contained results for about 3,100 counties; here we show results for more than 168,000 voting precincts.” It’s not hard to see how campaigns can improve their broadcast media ads using the map. Explore and learn.

Chris Cillizza argues that “Every sign is pointing to a Democratic wave in November” at CNN’s The Point: “While many of the more than four dozen Democratic challengers who outraised their GOP incumbent opponents are already in targeted races, others remain on the periphery of the landscape of what are commonly accepted as competitive districts. But if the horizon continues to slide toward Democrats, some Republican House members who may not think they are in trouble right now could find themselves suddenly vulnerable. And if their Democratic opponent already has enough money in the bank to run ads and ensure voters know they have a choice, it could be curtains for people who no one is even thinking about possibly losing right now…Add it all up — and throw in the weight of history that suggests the President’s party loses, on average, 33 seats in midterm elections — and you have a devil’s brew for Republicans….”Think it’s safe to say the odds of a D House takeover have never been higher this cycle,” tweeted National Journal politics editor Josh Kraushaar. “Time is running out for Rs to turn things around.”

If you know any younguns who are interested in getting into political campaign work, suggest they read “2018 Rising Stars” at Campaigns & Elections. The article features 22 one-paragraph profiles of young political activists (ten of them Democrats). The article notes that “Rising Star recipients have climbed to the heights of politics, launching dozens of successful consulting firms and serving at the highest levels of state and federal campaigns.” Here’s a sample entry: “Tara McGowan, Democrat, Founder and CEO, ACRONYM and Lockwood Strategy.With her new ventures, ACRONYM and Lockwood Strategy, Tara McGowan is helping progressive campaigns and organizations on the left to run more nimble and innovative digital programs. In just over a year, Lockwood has doubled in size and played a leading role in helping Democrats to major 2017 wins up and down the ballot in Virginia. Among the innovation already emerging from McGowan’s new venture: a first-of-its-kind online voter registration program with a custom built, end-to-end registration and relational organizing platform, a digital organizing tools assessment designed to help campaigns and organizations break through vendor marketing speak to more effectively utilize the digital resources available in the Democratic tech space, and a multi-million dollar digital-only effort to flip over 100 state legislative seats blue in the midterm elections this fall.”

Zawn Villines’s post, “Authoritarianism Thrives on Demoralization: How to Fight Trump and Stay Psychologically Healthy” at Daily Kos (via the San Diego Free Press) suggests 15 ways to avoid activist burnout, including: “It’s time to stop pointing fingers at those who didn’t vote. Unless, of course, you want them to get even angrier and not vote again. It’s time to sway them, court them, welcome them into the party, give them a seat at the table, and when they’re ready, encourage them to run. We need everyone, and we especially need those who see what’s wrong with party business as usual.” Also, “Don’t waste your energy arguing with Nazis on Facebook. Don’t let your conservative family “devil’s advocate” you into a state of rage and panic. Don’t allow people to burn through energy you could spend on something useful” and “Stop Wasting Time Talking About How Bad Things Are or Will Be… spinning our wheels in panic about a future we can’t control only wastes energy. Do what you can to protect yourself, yes. But after you’ve done that, stop reading about how bad things are, stop trying to convince people how hopeless it all is, and get back to work.” To this last I would add, ‘Let go of political instant gratification – real social change can take years, even generations. Fight for the kids, their kids and coming generations. Be a happy, long-haul warrior.’

Here’s another great ad for Democratic congressional campaigns to learn from:

Eric Bradner has an update on “Democratic governors set to take on the bigger names in 2020 race” at CNN Politics. Bradner writes, “A handful of Democratic governors are wading into the early stages of the 2020 presidential contest…Three governors — Montana’s Steve Bullock, Colorado’s John Hickenlooper and Washington state’s Jay Inslee — each said in interviews at the National Governors Association summer meeting in New Mexico this week that they are considering 2020 runs.” Noting that all three governors have visited Iowa already, Bradner adds, “Two Democratic former governors — Massachusetts’ Deval Patrick and Virginia’s Terry McAuliffe — are also considering 2020 runs…the governors think they have a compelling case to make: While other Democratic leaders were in Washington criticizing President Donald Trump, they’ve enacted agendas designed to forcefully counter him on issues like climate change and health care.” All five governors have impressive track records and solid approval ratings in their respective states. Given the plummeting approval rates for congress, it seems increasingly possible that one of them, or another governor to come, will win the Democratic nomination.

According to judoka Masao Takahashi, Jiu-jitsu is “manipulating the opponent’s force against themselves rather than confronting it with one’s own force.” Perhaps Dems can deploy some political jiu-jitsu with an ad message that Republican domination of America’s major political institutions has produced only one legislative “accomplishment” — a multibillion dollar tax break for the wealthy. There could also be a Democratic meme/ad reminding voters that “The GOP has control of the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court, and the only health care “reform” they are proposing is taking away coverage for prior conditions. Pathetic.”

At The Plum Line, Paul Waldman works a version of this angle: “As much attention as we all give to the latest outrage from President Trump, polls have repeatedly shownhealth care to be at or near the top of the public’s agenda when it comes to the midterm elections. Republicans are clearly nervous: They are planning symbolic votes in the House on the same old GOP health-care ideas (health savings accounts!) as a way of dealing with Democratic attacks on the issue…Unlike many issues, with health care, Democrats can make a persuasive argument no matter to whom they are talking. To their own base, they can say, “Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take away Medicaid from millions, and now they want to do even more to take away health security.” And to swing voters, they can say, “Look what Republicans have done to you. Your premiums keep going up, your out-of pocket costs keep going up, and now the Trump administration even wants to take away protections for people with preexisting conditions. They said they’d fix everything, and they failed.” For Democrats, Waldman argues, “as a piece of marketing, “Medicare for all” is dynamite. Everyone loves Medicare, and the idea of just giving it to everybody is incredibly appealing. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation pollfound that 59 percent of respondents favored “Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan,” while 75 percent favored a Medicare for all plan that would be open to anyone but not required.”

When we talk about “checks and balances,” it’s usually in the context of our political institutions. This includes the three branches of government being designed to limit one another or other provisions of the constitution, such as ratification of amendments by the states. Could the GOP’s majorities also provide Democrats with a ‘checks and balances’ messaging opportunity? To restore healthy balance to our government, voting Democratic is the most effective thing a citizen can do in 2018. As Lee Drutman observed at vox.com, “There is no separation of powers without divided government.” It may seem a self-evident point, but it can’t hurt to encourage voters to think about it a little more. Dems could have a jiu-jitsu ad about one-party rule, and the responsibility of citizens who value balance and bipartisanship to vote accordingly: “The ulitimate force for ‘checks and balances’ is the voter” is a message that may resonate in the fall.

Despite gridlock in congress, Democrats have reason for hope in the state legislatures: “Since the Parkland, Fla., high school massacre in February,” writes Amber Phillips in her article “After Parkland, gun-control advocates see a turning point for new state laws” at The Fix, “gun-control advocates have said there is something different about the debate this year, an energy on the issue that is driving gun safety to the top of minds of suburban moms and younger, traditionally less engaged voters. How, or if, that affects the November midterm elections is to be determined. But there is an early manifestation of this newfound political energy: Gun-control advocates had their best year in state legislatures in recent history…Since the Florida shooting, the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence counts 55 new gun-control laws passing in 26 states. That is far more success than they normally see, any way you measure it: in the number of laws, the variety of the laws passed and the bipartisan support a number of them had. Republican governors in 15 states signed bills gun-control advocates supported…It is hard to overstate what a shift this is from last year, where gun-control groups were focused on trying to stop states from allowing guns in universities in churches. But after Americans lived through three of the deadliest mass shootings in its history, it was the pro-gun rights side that was on the defense in state legislatures in a way it has not been before.”

Democrats had better be on high alert for voter “caging” projects by Republicans, particularly in swing districts. Li Zhou reports that “Voter purges are on the rise in states with a history of racial discrimination” at Vox. Zhou notes that “States are kicking a growing number of voters off their rolls in the wake of a 2013 Supreme Court decision that invalidated a key part of the Voting Rights Act…The spike is notable. Between 2006 and 2008, 12 million voters were purged from voter rolls. Between 2014 and 2016, that number rose to 16 million — a roughly 33 percent increase…Voter purge rates in preclearance jurisdictions between 2012 to 2016 far outpaced those in jurisdictions that were not previously subject to federal preclearance. The report — which analyzed 6,600 jurisdictions and calculated purge rates for 49 states — concludes that as many as 2 million more voters were removed from voter rolls due to the higher purge rates in the preclearance states.”

James Downie explains “What really disturbs voters about Russia’s election interference” at Post Partisan.” Citing the new Washington Post-ABC News poll, Downie writes, “the poll also suggests that, in talking about the “Russia scandal,” Trump opponents should focus less on Russia and more on the election interference itself…Partisans support or oppose Trump depending on their political party, and independents are less concerned about the president’s performance than furor in Washington and the media would suggest. Clear majorities of Republicans approved of how Trump handled the summit and believe American leadership has “gotten stronger.” Democrats said the opposite. And for independents, only 38 percent thought the president went “too far” in supporting Putin, compared with 52 percent who answered “not far enough” or “about right.”…Trump opponents can be slightly relieved that independents didn’t side with Republicans. Overall, though, as The Post’s Scott Clement and Dan Balz note, “The findings indicate that while Trump was judged critically for his summit performance, the event has not at this time proved to be a significant turning point in his presidency.” If you wondered why even after Helsinki most Republicans avoided criticizing the president, this poll is your answer…But on one question — whether voters approve of Trump expressing doubt about whether Russia tried to influence the 2016 election — the numbers look different. On that query, 60 percent of independents disapprove — a clear majority. Furthermore, only 51 percent of Republicans approve of Trump impugning the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusions and 31 percent disapprove. Yes, that’s still a majority in favor, but by Republican standards, 51 percent support for the president is astonishingly low. Remember, at the 500-day mark of his presidency, Trump’s approval rating among Republicans was nearly 90 percent. Other than George W. Bush post-Sept. 11, that’s the highest support for a president within his own party since World War II. Any issue where only half of Republicans support the president and nearly a third oppose is an opportunity to erode enthusiasm among his base…for everyone who understands that protecting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe is vital, this poll is a reminder to keep election interference itself front and center when making that case.”

At pbs.org, Meg Dalton reports on President Trump’s full pardon of Dwight and Steven Hammond, “father-and-son ranchers from Oregon who were convicted of intentionally setting fire to federal land two years ago…The Hammonds became central to the debate over public lands in the West when their imprisonment inspired the now-infamous ranching family, the Bundys, and a cadre of anti-federal government militants to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January 2016.” Trump’s pardon says in essence “no crime ever happened, according to Peter Walker, a professor at the University of Oregon. Whereas a commutation would have meant their release from prison, a pardon brushes off the Hammonds’ conviction entirely and legitimizes the Bundys’ far-right movement…Trump’s pardon could encourage those who want to confront and harass federal employees, according to Walker. “It puts a target on the back on federal employees,” he said. “This declares open season [on them].” It also may signal a new raid on public lands, in which big timber and other extractive industries exploit federal land for corporate and personal gain, later to be punctuated by their increased contributions to the GOP.

Here’s one antidote to the GOP’s environmental destruction agenda: “Nathaniel Stinnett knows he’s preaching to the choir. The problem is, even believers don’t always show up for church. Dismayed by how low environmental concerns like climate change, pollution and pipelines rank on surveys of voter priorities, Stinnett founded the nonpartisan Environmental Voter Project three years ago on the hunch that a substantial number of people care about environmental issues and are registered to vote, but don’t show up on Election Day…The veteran Boston-based campaign strategist developed a formula for identifying these voters. He builds profiles based on consumer, demographic and behavioral data, then runs a series of polls to verify the data and find out how likely voters are to list environmental causes among their top two political priorities. Stinnett and his team of three sift through the survey responses to identify patterns…After that, they run those profiles through a model that scores voters based on how likely they are to be so-called “super environmentalists.” Finally, they cut out people whose public voting records show they turn out for most elections. What’s left is a group of registered voters who don’t need to be sold on the reality of climate change or the dangers of air pollution – they just need to be convinced to get to the polls.” – from “This Man Is Building an ‘Army’ of Environmental Super Voters to Rival the NRA in Turnout” by Alexander C. Kaufman at HuffPo, via The Environmental Voter Project.

A worthy health care talking point for today, from Austin Frakt’s “Hidden From View: The Astonishingly High Administrative Costs of U.S. Health Care” at The Upshot: “A widely cited study published in The New England Journal of Medicine used data from 1999 to estimate that about 30 percent of American health care expenditures were the result of administration, about twice what it is in Canada. If the figures hold today, they mean that out of the average of about $19,000 that U.S. workers and their employers pay for family coverage each year, $5,700 goes toward administrative costs…That New England Journal of Medicine study is still the only one on administrative costs that encompasses the entire health system. Many other more recent studies examine important portions of it, however. The story remains the same: Like the overall cost of the U.S. health system, its administrative cost alone is No. 1 in the world.”

Michael Tomasky has a New York Times op-ed urging Democrats to fight hard against the Kavanaugh nomination. Fight to win, but have a sound strategy ready if you lose. Tomasky argues that Dems should make the nomination fight “a referendum on Judge Kavanaugh’s past actions and on President Trump’s character…Polls usually show that on most issues, in the abstract, majorities support the Democratic position, from preserving Social Security to comprehensive immigration reform. That seems great for Democrats, but in fact it often lulls them into an uncreative passivity: They’re with us on the issues, Democrats think, so all we have to do is discuss the issues and we’re home free.” But issues are not the only, or even, the primary, factor in every campaign.

Democrats, Tomasky adds, “must discuss character — both the president’s and Judge Kavanaugh’s. The nominee worked for Ken Starr in 1998 as Mr. Starr pursued President Bill Clinton. What exactly did he do for Mr. Starr?…Did he leak secret grand jury proceedings, violating Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure?” Tomasky cites the possibility of Trump naming his own future jurors. “The Democrats’ job here is to get Judge Kavanaugh on the record” about whether or not Trump can be prosecuted…The Democrats will probably lose the Kavanaugh battle” writes Tomasky, “But there are two ways to do it. They can lose by appearing to be timid, calculating, fretting too much about the consequences of being aggressive…Or they can lose by showing they understand that millions of Americans are counting on them to protect their rights and, the stakes being what they are, the Constitution itself. If Democrats do the latter, they will manage to have laid the groundwork for some optimism about November and 2020.”

In his article, “Study: Campaigns Falling short on Latino Outreach,” Sean J. Miller writes, “A new report released Monday focused attention on some 25 competitive House districts where Latino voters could make a sizable difference this fall and underscored the need for campaigns and political parties to invest in outreach now as the Latino voting population surges…The report, a collaboration between UnidosUS and the California Civic Engagement Project at the University of Southern California, charts demographic shifts that forecast the Latino population will grow more than 50 percent in the next two decades to 87.5 million — representing nearly a quarter of all Americans…their turnout when they’re on the voter rolls — at least in presidential cycles — “is close to that of registered voters in other groups, or upwards of 80 [percent.]…“Latino share of total votes cast nationwide was very close to the Latino share of the U.S. registered voter population — 9.2 [percent] and 9.7 [percent], respectively.” In addition,  “There are congressional districts where Latino youth actually outperform older Latino voters,” including in Wyoming, Iowa and the Carolinas.

Some ‘key points’ from Rhodes Cook’s data-rich article, “Registering by Party: Where the Democrats and Republicans Are Ahead” at Sabato’s Crystal Ball: “Altogether, there are 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) with party registration; in the others, such as Virginia, voters register without reference to party. In 19 states and the District, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. In 12 states, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats. In aggregate, 40% of all voters in party registration states are Democrats, 29% are Republicans, and 28% are independents. Nationally, the Democratic advantage in the party registration states approaches 12 million.” Cooks adds that “the Democrats approach this fall’s midterm elections with an advantage in one key aspect of the political process — their strength in states where voters register by party.” However, “Altogether, there are 10 states with more registered independents than either Democrats or Republicans. These states are mainly in the Northeast, with a cluster also in the West. By comparison, there are Democratic pluralities of registered voters in 13 states plus the District of Columbia and eight other states with Republicans ahead of both Democrats and independents. In addition, there are six states where there is an independent plurality but Democrats outnumber Republicans, and four states where independents are on top of the registration totals but Republicans outnumber Democrats. That produces the 19 to 12 state registration advantage for the Democrats mentioned earlier.”

In “Optimizing Your Efforts in 2018: Part I, the House,” Sam Wang writes at The Princeton Election Consortium: “The odds moderately favor a switch in control of the House of Representatives in 2018. But make no mistake, things could go either way. This November will be a battle of inches…For many of you, the battle’s coming to a district near you. We’re renewing a tool that made its debuttwo years ago. Sharon Machlis has very kindly updated her Congressional District finder to display swing districts for 2018. It’s awesome – check it out!..Many of the closest races will be run in the suburbs of America. Here are some high-value areas: Six swing districts are within 100 miles of New York City; Five are within 50 miles of Los Angeles; and Five are within 50 miles of Chicago.”

Republicans are understandably a tad miffed at satirist Sasha Baron Cohen, who just punked three Republican leaders, and got them to support a “Kinderguardian” program, arming pre-schoolers. For an amusing take on the fuss, check out John Quelley’s “Think GOP Lawmakers Not Unhinged Enough to Endorse Program Called “Kinderguardians” That Puts Guns in Hands of 4-Year-Old Kids? Watch Them: Sacha Baron Cohen’s new show is about to drop and exposed nut-job Republicans are not happy about it” at Common Dreams.

E. J. Dionne, Jr.’s syndicated column, “The centrist heavenly chorus is off-key”  notes, “Among the myths that can steer us off course in the Trump era, three are particularly popular. First, that political polarization is primarily a product of how elites behave and not the result of real divisions in our country. Second, that a vast group of party-loathing independents can be mobilized by anti-partisan messages. Third, that Republicans and Democrats are becoming increasingly and equally extreme, so they should be scolded equally…All these pious wishes are false, as Alan I. Abramowitz’s latest book, “The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump,” makes clear. He provides a wealth of data in a compact package…As Abramowitz shows, most people who identify as independents lean toward one party or the other…Factoring out independents who tilt toward a party, “only about 12 percent of Americans have fallen into the ‘pure independent’ category, and these people are much less interested in politics and much less likely to vote than independent leaners.” Independents are plainly not some magical force that will call into being that centrist third party that looms so large in the imaginations of many pundits and fundraisers…Abramowitz’s data make clear that the two sides are not equivalent. Republicans have moved significantly further to the right than Democrats have moved to the left.”

From “Midterm Election Winners Could Determine Medicaid’s Future” at aarp.org: “For 53 years, Medicaid has served as a safety net for millions of people who needed assistance as their ability to care for themselves declined. In 2010, Medicaid’s health care role grew with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which called for the expansion of health coverage to more low-income families. So far, 33 states and Washington, D.C., have expanded the program…Seventy-four percent of Americans have a favorable view of Medicaid, according to a February tracking poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). That may be due to Medicaid’s long reach. For example, the program covers 6 in 10 nursing home residents in America, a KFF report shows…Several states (including Utah, Nebraska and Idaho) may have proposals for Medicaid expansion on their ballots this fall…Whoever is elected as governor or to the state legislature could well determine whether a state revisits the issue.”

Jeffrey Peck’s op-ed, “No more softball, Senate. Ask Trump’s Supreme Court pick these questions” at The Washington Post provides a pretty good checklist of questions. Peck, a former general counsel and staff director of the Senate Judiciary Committee, writes: “The Bork, Kennedy and Souter hearings tell us that questions such as the following can and should be asked — and answered:…Do you believe the Constitution recognizes a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment? Is Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the court embraced this right, settled law?…Do you agree with Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. — whose seat Kennedy took — who wrote in Moore v. East Cleveland, “Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment”? Do you consider it a “fundamental” liberty such that the government may interfere only for extraordinary reasons?…What factors would you weigh in determining whether a prior decision by the Supreme Court is settled law? Is Brown v. Board of Education settled law? How would you determine whether Roe v. Wade is settled law?…What is your understanding of “one person, one vote” under the 14th Amendment and its relation to state gerrymandering practices?…What examples would you cite of proper limits on the assertion of executive power by the president?” Feel free to add a couple of questions clarifying the nominee’s views on Citizens United and the right to join and organize labor unions. “Let’s have real hearings with enlightening discussion, not fake ones with vapid cliches,” concludes Peck. “The American people are entitled to know whether fundamental rights and liberties will be maintained, constrained or eviscerated.”

Don’t get too swayed by media drama about tonight’s hyped-up reveal of Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, advises Ed Kilgore: “You’d be wise to tell yourself “Don’t believe the hype.” The most convincing indications are that Trump is determined to keep the world in suspense about this fateful decision before revealing it Monday night on live TV in an approximation of the reality-show format he mastered long before running for president. It is, after all, what he did in naming his first SCOTUS nominee, Neil Gorsuch, in 2017, a process that avoided the usual chronic Trump White House leaks and involved some deliberate misdirection..it’s not just a matter of Trump repeating last year’s PR success: the less lead time media folk have to obsess about the actual nominee, the more the focus stays on Trump himself. And that’s how the 45th president likes it.”

“Globalization is an omelet that cannot be unscrambled,” writes Jared Bernstein at Post Everything Perspective. “That doesn’t mean that it’s all sunny-side up. Many people and communities have been hurt by exposure to trade, especially American-style, unbalanced trade, with little social policy to offset the losses of those thrown into competition with workers earning much lower wages. In fact, the denial of trade-induced wage and job losses by center-left-to-right-wing politicians was something Trump skillfully tapped during the 2016 campaign, enabling him to vanquish opponents who implicitly argued that Rust Belt voters simply weren’t smart enough to realize how much “free trade” has helped them…But the globalization omelet means that Trump’s tariffs won’t work. Why not? Because they target so many inputs into American production (“intermediate” and capital goods) and threaten, through retaliatory actions, lucrative international supply chains tapped by American exporters (follow the money soybeans). They will hurt more Americans than they will help, and, in most cases, the economics of replacing imported goods with domestic content won’t make economic sense. As Paul Krugman put it, “What’s notable about the Trump tariffs … is that they’re so self-destructive.”..It’s bad enough that team Trump doesn’t do anything to help those hurt by trade. Now, it is enacting policies that will hurt those helped by trade. They promised win-win; they’re delivering lose-lose.”

Instead, Bernstein recommends, “Two straightforward policies would help our exporters: Fight back against exchange rate manipulation and seriously beef up the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The former levels the playing field by taking action against countries that buy dollars to make our exports expensive in their currency and their exports to us cheaper in dollars. The MEP, which Trump zeroes out in his budget, is a Commerce Department agency that can help small manufacturers get a regional foothold and even find their way into global supply chains…To help the people and communities hurt by trade, we must invest some of the benefits of expanded trade into places where our persistent trade deficits and job outsourcing have undermined opportunities. In fact, this is entirely consistent with the rationale for expanded trade, even if it is largely forgotten by its contemporary proponents. These investments should take the form of direct job creation, significant wage subsidies, training for new jobs, infrastructure investment, and what economist Tim Bartik describes as “life-cycle skill development, including high-quality child care, high-quality preschool, K-12 education, college scholarships, and adult job training.” As he puts it: “better skills for local workers help attract and grow higher-wage jobs.”

At The Monkey Cage, “This might be the way to prove partisan gerrymandering, according to the new Supreme Court standard” by Bernard Grofman sheds light on the “successful challenges will not mean a whole state’s map must be redrawn. Rather, they will affect only a relative handful of districts — with some spillover effects, as adjacent districts will need to be redrawn…Partisan gerrymandering opponents will have to come up with different types of evidence than they presented in these two cases. In these cases, expert evidence on partisan gerrymandering has involved statistical evidence about the effects of the plan as a whole, especially as compared with a politically neutral districting process. However, in two other states, Maryland and Michigan, partisan gerrymandering challenges are already being considered that involve allegations of packing or cracking in particular districts ..Packing means concentrating one party’s backers in just a few districts, so they win by overwhelming margins. Cracking means dividing a party’s supporters among several districts so that party has a harder time winning a majority in each one. There are other tools, such as separating minority-party incumbents from their previous supporters…Here’s the problem: If evidence about gerrymandering must be district-specific, it will be necessary to identify exactly which districts were (unconstitutionally) cracked and which were (unconstitutionally) packed. That is not easy.”

For a deeper dive into the politics of partisan gerrymandering, check out at The Princeton Election Consortium’s research project on the problem. “We are engaged in nonpartisan analysis to help understand the causes of partisan gerrymandering, and develop tools to fix it through court action and through citizen-led reform efforts. For example, our amicus brief in one of this year’s Supreme Court cases was used by the Court in their decision in Gill v. Whitford. To learn more about that analysis, which can be applied on a state-by-state basis, watch our great explainer video. For a deep dive into why partisan gerrymandering has soared, see our piece in The American Prospect…We’re also taking the analysis to a local level. State supreme courts, citizen initiatives, and new laws can establish procedures and limits in ways that are specific to a state’s special circumstances. Understanding the connection between proposed laws and actual outcomes will require careful analysis and a major data-gathering effort.”