A lot of media outlets reported the unexpected defeat of the Farm Bill in the House this week. But there’s quite a significant backstory, which I wrote up at New York.

Back in the day, the Farm Bills enacted every five years to reauthorize major agriculture and nutrition programs were the model of bipartisanship. Indeed, the food stamp program (now called “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program”) was first devised in part as a way to extend support for Farm Bills to include urban legislators who didn’t know a combine from a snowplow.

The defeat of the latest Farm Bill on the House floor shows how far the old formula has unraveled.

In more recent and ideologically driven Congresses, the bills have sometimes attracted heat from the right, involving both libertarian-ish objections to crop subsidies and hostility toward food stamps as “welfare” programs for those people. Indeed, in 2013 the whole enterprise nearly went down (and wasn’t finished until 2014) over SNAP funding, with House conservatives not thinking cuts went far enough and Senate Democrats thinking they went too far.

With Republicans now controlling both Houses, the big initial Farm Bill controversy has been over the GOP’s desire (lashed along by the Trump administration) to toughen SNAP’s already significant work requirements. Indeed, this became a signature cause for lame-duck Speaker Paul Ryan, and a sort of shriveled booby prize for his frustrated plans to clobber entitlement programs and “welfare” before leaving Congress.

The SNAP provisions of the current Farm Bill guaranteed united House Democratic opposition, and also cost the votes of a few GOP “moderates.” But the bigger problem emerged when conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus looked at the overall dynamics and decided to take the bill hostage to their demands for an immediate House vote on the Goodlatte immigration bill — a measure more conservative than the president’s own in that it offers no permanent succor to Dreamers in exchange for the reductions in legal immigration and border wall funding. This in turn was a response to a very different maneuver by a group of endangered Republican moderates in blue- or heavily Latino districts to join with Democrats and force a vote on a bill that is significantly friendlier to Dreamers without all the nativist filler in the Goodlatte and presidential proposals.

In the end, all these problems were too much of a lift, and the bill went down decisively by a 198–213 margin, with 30 Republicans (actually 29, plus Ryan, who voted no to preserve the right to make a later motion for reconsideration) opposing it. As the GOP defectors keep pointing out, the program authorizations covered by the Farm Bill don’t run out until the end of September, so there’s time to work something out on both immigration and SNAP in time to avoid the mess that occurred last time around. But with so little else of substance on the House agenda this year (at least the Senate has confirmations to absorb its time), it’s entirely possible the Farm Bill will continue to attract hostage-takers until the end of the session….

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan’s desire for a little trophy he can take home to Wisconsin representing his desire to liberate poor people from the government’s help in making ends meet will be delayed one more time.

The unacknowledged—but vitally important—perspective that is necessary to understand why many non-racist white working class voters voted for Trump—and might do so again if Democrats don’t figure out how to respond.

A Democratic candidate running in a district with a significant number of white working class voters quickly learns that there are three major explanations for Trump’s popularity among these Americans.

1. Racism and bigotry
2. Anxiety and hostility over loss of status, role and position in a changing society
3. Legitimate and justified anger regarding difficult economic circumstances

Each of these explanations has important implications for how a Democratic candidate should run his or her campaign…

Read the Memo.

If Democrats are ever going to regain majority control of Congress, they will have to hold seats, as well as win new ones. For an instructive read about how it’s done, read Perry Bacon, Jr.’s 538 post, “Missouri’s Claire McCaskill Has Been Savvy And Lucky — Can She Do It Again?” As Bacon writes,

Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri has survived the growing Republicanismof her state by being good at politics. But she’s also been a bit lucky. And that combination may save her again this November…McCaskill is not just politically endangered because she, along with nine other Senate Democrats, is running in a red state. President Trump won Missouri by 19 percentage points.

Bacon goes on to note that Trump’s popularity since the 2016 election has tanked in Missouri, down to 2 points net favorability in one poll and 4 in another. That helps McCaskill. So does the nasty scandal centering on Missouri’s indicted Republican Governor Eric Greitens, whose refusal to resign has divided the state GOP and has likely damaged Republican credibility to provide good leadership in the eyes of some voters. McCaskill’s re-election race is very close, according to polls:

That same Emerson poll showed McCaskill tied at 45 percent with Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, who is the favorite to win the Aug. 7 GOP Senate primary in the state. Two other polls from April showed McCaskill with tiny leads (1 and 4 percentage points) over Hawley. So McCaskill is competitive, despite the conservatism of the state. But she is far from a shoo-in. This is likely to be a close race, with both parties spending heavily.

McCaskill is an emblematic centrist Democrat in the sense that “She has voted with Trump’s position on about 46 percent of legislation⁴ in the Senate, according to FiveThirtyEight’s Trump score tracker, enabling the senator to position herself as not adamantly opposing everything the president does like some of her more liberal colleagues. At the same time, she voted against the major initiatives that Trump and congressional Republicans pushed last year, the health policy proposals that would have gotten rid of parts of the Affordable Care Act and the tax overhaul.” McCaskill understands that many voters who self-identify as conservatives support liberal policies that are properly presented.

Credit McCaskill with agile and gutsy campaign skills, as Bacon explains:

If you’ve followed McCaskill’s career, it’s not surprising that she is well-positioned in 2018 — she seems to be good at getting elected, staying in office and anticipating where politics is going. In 1992, she was the first woman elected to be the county prosecutor in Jackson County, which includes Kansas City. She was later elected state auditor and just barely lost her 2004 gubernatorial bid. In 2006, she was the first woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate from Missouri, defeating a GOP incumbent. Early in 2008, she endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, a move that was bold and controversial, since she was the first female senator to embrace Obama over Clinton.

In 2012, McCaskill was in trouble, running for reelection in a year when Obama was on the ballot but unpopular in Missouri. So McCaskill and her campaign ran ads ahead of the GOP primary in Missouri, trying to boost the most conservative candidate in that race, then-GOP Rep. Todd Akin…The goal was to get conservative primary voters to back Akin as a way to annoy Democrats…McCaskill felt Akin would be the weakest of the GOP candidates in the general election. It’s not clear how much that ad boosted Akin in the primary, but he won that race and McCaskill easily defeated him in the general election.

McCaskill’s luck kicked in again —  she “wasn’t on the ballot in 2010 or 2014, years when Republicans were dominant in congressional elections.” And if she wins this year, “it would be quite a feat. She would have won three straight Senate elections in Missouri, while the state went from one where Democrats lost at the presidential level by 7 percentage points (2004) to almost 20 points (2016).”

The thing about McCaskill’s ‘lucky breaks’ is that she wasn’t just a passive recipient of good luck; when ‘luck’ came near, she pounced on it with a bold response at every opportunity, learning from mistakes and tweaking her strategy and tactics to leverage advantage at pivotal political moments. In addition to being an alert campaigner, she is also very good at setting a positive tone in television interviews and uses media adroitly.

None of this is to say that McCaskill’s tactics can be replicated in every campaign. But her strategy of paying close attention to her adversaries weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and then addressing them boldly and driving wedges through the opposition is exemplary. She has also shown that a centrist political persona can be an asset in winning support for hot button progressive reforms, including Obamacare, gun safety, immigration, reproductive rights and others. Democrats running in red states and districts can benefit by studying her example.

Often things in Washington are not at all as they seem, which is the case with a new maneuver by Senate Republicans. I explained at New York.

The election-year August recess is a sacred institution in Congress, instituted initially because of the capital city’s unbearable summer weather, and maintained in the air-conditioning era to let members of Congress go home and pound the pavement in pursuit of reelection. On rare occasions it is canceled or curtailed because accomplishing some particular legislative goal or at least looking busy is considered as valuable politically as time back home.

At first blush this might seem to be the reason 16 Republican senators are urging Mitch McConnell to cancel this year’s August recess. And indeed, that’s what they are saying in a letter to their leader, as the Washington Post reports:

“Senate Republicans note that there are just 67 working days left before the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30, although that counts Fridays, when the chamber is rarely in session.

“This leaves only 12 weeks to get 12 appropriations bills out of committee and consider them on the floor,” they wrote. “That alone is an impossible task. When combined with the crucial need to confirm more nominees, it is clear we do not have enough time.”

Appropriations, or at least some of them, are almost always rolled into omnibus measures enacted just prior to the end of the current fiscal year on September 30, if not later (after a stopgap bill is enacted to keep the government operating). So the demand for 12 spending bills is a bit specious. It is true that the president has been pounding the Senate off and on for most of his presidency for not confirming his Judicial and Executive-branch nominees at the breakneck pace he would prefer. But like appropriations, that’s something the majority of the Senate typically works out by negotiating with the minority that invariably insists on the leisurely pace the chamber’s rules allow. It’s all part of standard politics.

There’s a different reason Republicans might want, and that McConnell might strongly consider, a recess cancellation: there are ten Democratic senators up this year from states carried by Donald Trump in 2016. There is just one Republican incumbent up this year from a state carried by Hillary Clinton. Yes, there are two other highly vulnerable GOP-held Senate seats at stake this fall, in Arizona and Tennessee. But they are held by lame ducks Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, respectively.

Keeping these Democratic senators off the campaign trail in August is a bankable asset for the GOP. And even if it doesn’t happen, the threat of making it happen will have value in negotiations with Democrats over items like appropriations and confirmations. As Slate’s Jim Newell observes:

“The threat of canceling an August recess, even in a non-election year, can move mountains. Though any individual senator can slow the Senate — an institution built on consent — to a crawl if he or she so desires, the Senate can move quite quickly when the consent is there. That’s what happened after McConnell announced he would cancel the first two weeks of August recess last year. The Senate only ended up staying one additional week, and confirmed a host of additional nominees en bloc at the snap of the leader’s fingers.”

Senators facing possible defeat can discover reservoirs of sweet reason in abundance if the alternative is being stuck in Washington — particularly if they aren’t getting much visible work done — as opponents savage them back home. McConnell knows this. He will probably count on its powerful effect as he mulls the August recess.

A bit of temporary good news for Democrats — and for everyone who doesn’t want to pay more for internet service, as reported in Cecilia Kang’s “Senate Democrats Win Vote on Net Neutrality, a Centerpiece of 2018 Strategy” in The New York Times: “The Senate passed a resolution in a 52-47 vote to overturn a decision last December by the Federal Communications Commission to dismantle Obama-era rules that prevented broadband providers like Verizon and Comcast from blocking or speeding up streams and downloads of web content in exchange for extra fees. The commission’s repeal of net neutrality is set to take effect in a few weeks.” However, “the rare victory for Democrats is sure to be short-lived, with a similar resolution expected to die in the House, where Republicans have a larger majority. Only three Republican senators voted in support of the resolution [Collins, Murkowski and Kennedy]. However, “The effort to stop the repeal of net neutrality rules is part of a broader political strategy by Democrats to rally young voters in the November elections.” Here’s a sharable link for contacting Senators who voted to raise internet fees.

We shouldn’t be surprised that the biggest corporate advocates of destroying Net Neutrality — Verizon, Comcast and AT&T — are also deeply involved in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which provides “template” voter suppression legislation and other Republican-friendly bills for state legislatures. Could a cell phone users campaign to ditch these providers get them to back away from their big bucks opposition to net neutrality and support of voter suppression?

Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Democratic nomination. But it looks increasing like Sen. Bernie Sanders is proving more influential on the future policies of the Democratic Party, as David Weigel and Michael Scherer explain at PowerPost: “Democrats across the board are embracing the policies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Medicare for all, legal marijuana and free college — but primary results underscore that the 2016 presidential candidate is struggling to emerge as a kingmaker in the party…While Sanders hasn’t dominated the Democratic Party, his ideas have made huge inroads. “What Bernie’s doing now is seeding what we’re going to do in November,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), one of a handful of congressmen who endorsed Sanders for president. “Even in those districts where somebody’s going to lose, you’ve got to keep people activated. It’s a different kind of trickle-down.”…Sanders-backed candidates are 10 for 21 this election cycle, while 46 of the 134 who had the support of Our Revolution, the group Sanders started after his presidential bid, triumphed. There have been some notable losses, including Tom Perriello in Virginia’s Democratic primary for governor last year and gubernatorial hopeful Dennis Kucinich in Ohio this month, who was backed by Our Revolution but not Sanders.”

From Ed Kilgore’s “Primary Roundup: Big Victories for Women and Progressives” at New York Magazine: “The 2018 primary season ended in four more states on May 15, and, overall, it was one of many that will likely give this cycle a “Year of Women” description, particularly among Democrats. It also was a pretty good day for self-conscious Democratic progressives — and a bad day for those who fear their viability in general elections…In the next two weeks 11 states will hold primaries and another (Texas) will hold runoff elections. The relative calm of May 15 will be replaced by a lot of noise and perhaps some drama.”

In their NYT post “Half of the Women Running in House Primaries Have Won So Far,” Denise Liu and Kate Zernike write, “Record numbers of women are running for Congress. And many are winning: Ten states have had primaries so far, and in those, 60 women have won and 63 have lost…The surge in the number of candidates is mostly among Democrats, and of the 60 candidates who have won so far, 52 are Democrats…Of the 52 Democrats who have won their primaries, 34 are in districts that are considered solid or likely Republican seats in the general election in November, based on the ratings of three nonpartisan organizations.”

In a paragraph focusing on primery results in Pennsylvania, Joan Walsh noted at The Nation, “In Pennsylvania, a state with an all-male House of Representatives delegation, women won the nomination in four of the six races where Democrats are given the best chance of toppling a Republican, and in a couple more districts where victory will be tough, but still possible. In state legislative races, four women backed by the Democratic Socialists of America defeated male incumbents in their Democratic primaries. Three don’t have Republican opponents, meaning they’re almost certainly headed to Harrisburg. More than 100,000 more Democrats than Republicans turned out on primary day.”

Senator Amy Klobuchar put it well, when asked about Democratic midterm strategy focusing on Trump at the Center for American Progress Ideas Conference: “We’re not going to see [continued success] if we spend our whole time bemoaning the fact that he’s there,” Klobuchar said of Trump,” reports Chris Cillizza at CNN Politics. “He’s there. And we have to present an alternative…I promise you, if that is all we do to follow him down every rabbit hole, that is not how we change the country, that is not how we change the well-being.”” There is a strong link between the approval ratings of a sitting President and party performance in the midterms. But candidates should focus their campaigns on their positions on key issues of their constituents, draw contrasts to their opponents, and leave the Trump-bashing to the media and activists. Still, Trump’s mounting scandals may make it difficult for candidates to avoid the topic.

“Liberal anxiety about the fate of the midterms — and I would venture, the country itself — is rising,” writes NYT columnist Charles Blow in his column, “A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration.”To all this, I say: Calm down. Not relax. Not rest easy. Not coast. But stay the course and don’t panic. Work hard, message well and bring your passion — and a few neighbors and friends — to the polls in November…If voters do that, as they have already done in special elections, signs are positive for a major realignment in Washington.” Blow quotes an unamed CNN political analyst: “If past trends hold, it is possible Democrats could see a double-digit swing in the average House district in 2018 compared with past elections…The average swing across all elections has been +13 Democratic, signaling a national political environment is 13 points in the Democrats’ direction.”

Providing flexibility in places to vote  helps to increase voter turnout, as Bartholomew County, Indiana, found out on May 8th, reports local newspaper, The Republic. “The number of early voters who cast ballots this year in Bartholomew County was double the early turnout from four years ago…On Election Day, Bartholomew County could choose from 18 voting centers. Eight were located around Columbus, while others in Hope, Clifford, Taylorsville, Elizabethtown and other geographic areas of the county helped give voters plenty of options to make casting a ballot as easy as possible…Voters could cast a ballot at whichever voting center was most convenient, a much better scenario than when people were limited to a specific precinct during daytime hours when many people have employment obligations.”

Despite concerns about a slight uptick in Trump’s approval ratings in some recent polls, Alan I. Abramowitz, Senior Columnist, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, makes the case that “The Very Stable House Generic Ballot” bodes well for Democrats.

“On average,” writes Abramowitz, “Democrats led the generic ballot by 7.1 points over the past year. The monthly average ranged from 6.2 points in February 2018 to 10.1 points in December 2017. The December result was clearly an outlier, however, and may have led to a misinterpretation of more recent results as indicating a significant decline in the Democratic lead.”

When it comes to evaluating poll averages, Ambramowitz makes ful use of available data, explaining that “Over the past 12 months (May 2017 to April 2018), there were a total of 279 generic ballot polls included in FiveThirtyEight’s database. I used the raw, unadjusted poll results (in other words, I used the actual poll results as opposed to the adjusted numbers FiveThirtyEight uses in its average). The number of polls ranged from 18 to 32 per month.” The results are quite impressive and consistent over time, as Ambramowitz notes:

On average, Democrats led by 7.1 points over the past year, and Democrats have led in almost every individual poll. The monthly average ranged from 6.2 points in February 2018 to 10.1 points in December 2017. The December result was clearly an outlier, however, and may have led to a misinterpretation of more recent results as indicating a significant decline in the Democratic lead. Except for the December results, the monthly averages have fallen within a fairly narrow range of 6.2 to 7.8 points. December 2017 was also generally the weakest time for President Donald Trump’s approval rating, so the Republican brand as a whole just seemed weaker in December than before or since.

No wonder Republicans prefer to emphasize Trump’s slight improvement in his average approval ratings, or any other data points aside from the generic ballot data. Looking toward the midterm elections, Abramowitz adds,

What does this Democratic lead mean for the fall? While experts differ on how large of a lead Democrats need to feel good about their chances to flip the House, my House prediction model — described here in a previous Crystal Ball article — suggests lead of as small as four points might be sufficient, although the model’s standard error is wide enough that Democrats certainly would feel better about their odds if their lead in the generic ballot average was in the high single or even low double digits. Table 2 shows the model’s predictions for Democratic seat gains based on the House generic ballot average.

Table 2: Predicted change in Republican House seats by generic ballot polling

In her article, “Democratic candidates are focused on issues such as health care, despite what pundits say” At mic.com, Emily C. Singer”notes that “A recent HuffPost/YouGov poll from early April found that health care is the top issue for voters in the midterm elections. Nearly a third, or 30%, of voters said health care is their top issue, while guns and immigration tied for second place, with 25% each…“In the polling, when you ask people what’s the most important issue, health care comes up at the top or near the top,” Peter Hart, a longtime Democratic pollster who helps conduct the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, said in an interview.”

Here’s a political ad focusing on health care for Democratic Rep. Jacky Rosen, who is running for Senate in Nevada:

Bloomberg’s Joe Nocera make a persuasive case that “The gaming of Hatch-Waxman is one of the two most important reasons why drug prices are so out of control. The other reason is that drug company executives — like executives in every other industries — began kneeling at the altar of “shareholder value.” And the easiest way to boost profits, and thus the stock price, was to raise prices relentlessly…But the single best way to get drug prices under control would be to put the teeth back into Hatch-Waxman. It would not be a particularly difficult thing to do. First, shorten the patent exclusivity period to 10 years. (Drug companies say they need the longer time to recoup their research and development costs, but the truth is most companies spend more on marketing than R&D.)..Second, outlaw the practice of paying companies to keep generics off the market and similar forms of gamesmanship. Third — and most important of all — don’t allow companies to extend the period of exclusivity beyond the original 10 years.” Democrats should do all of the above, while also making a strong case for “allowing Medicare to negotiate directly with the drug companies over pricing. Given that Medicare spends over $400 billion on drugs, it would have tremendous negotiating power, that could yield billions in savings. Of course, that is exactly what the Republicans are afraid of, and why they persuaded the president to take it off the table.”

Washington Post business writers Erica Werner and Carolyn Y. Johnson note that “Democrats are trying to take back an issue Donald Trump effectively stole from them during the 2016 presidential campaign: the high cost of prescription drugs…Democrats are also promising to appoint a “price gouging” enforcer who would fine drug companies if their price increases surpassed certain thresholds — another piece they believe will show voters that Democrats are prepared to tackle the issue in a way Trump hasn’t…“There’s no question that it provides an opening for us,” said Rep. Richard E. Neal (Mass.), the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee…A Kaiser Health Tracking Poll in March found that 52 percent of Americans said passing legislation to lower prescription drug prices should be a “top priority” for Trump and Congress. Nearly three-quarters of Americans said pharmaceutical companies have too much influence in Washington, a view shared by both Democrats and Republicans.”

Overconfidence that feeds complacency is always a bad thing, which Democrats should keep in mind, regarding their strong performance in special elections since 2016. Powerpost’s Sean Sullivan and Seung Min Kim report that “Trump’s improved standing, energized GOP voters worry Democrats,” and note “After months of confidence that public discontent with President Trump would lift Democrats back to power in Congress, some party leaders are fretting that their advantages in this year’s midterms are eroding amid a shifting political landscape…Driving their concerns are Trump’s approval rating, which has ticked upward in recent weeks, and high Republican turnout in some recent primaries, suggesting the GOP base remains energized. What’s more, Republicans stand to benefit politically from a thriving economy and are choosing formidable candidates to take on vulnerable Democratic senators.” Fair enough. But Dems should not do too much handwringing. The sky is more likely to fall on Republicans than Dems in the coming months, as the Mueller probe zeroes in on the Trump Administration’s unprecedented level of corruption, dragging Trump’s approval ratings downward. The blue wave may be smaller than expected a few weeks ago. But the smart money is still on Dems winning a House majority, with gains in state legislatures. Moreover, “Republicans still have messy intraparty fights to navigate in Mississippi and Arizona, with polarizing Senate candidates who party officials believe could lose to Democrats. They are plotting ways to elevate the more electable ones…If Democrats can flip one or both of those seats, their path to the majority will be easier, contingent on holding seats. Democrats also have a plum opportunity for a pickup in Nevada.”

The Trump Trade Hawk walkback begins. As Brett Samuels reports at The Hill, “Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Sunday criticized President Trump for directing the Commerce Department to assist a Chinese telecommunications company…“How about helping some American companies first?” Schumer tweeted in response to Trump’s earlier tweet on the matter…Trump earlier in the day said he’s working with Chinese President Xi Jingping to get Chinese company ZTE “a way to get back into business, fast.”…“Too many jobs in China lost,” Trump tweeted.

L.A. Times writer Christine Mai-Duc reports on a new strategy for California Democrats competing in ‘top two’ primaries: “Vexed for months over the prospect of getting boxed out of crucial House races after California’s primary, Democrats think they’ve found a way to fight back….The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this week began airing television adsthat go after two Republicans running for retiring Rep. Ed Royce’s seat. The ads made no mention of a third, Young Kim, who has led polls, has the backing of Royce, and is widely seen as the Democrats’ most formidable potential opponent in November…By attacking two Republicans viewed as second-tier, Democrats are hoping to suppress GOP votes for those candidates while ensuring that Kim gets far enough ahead to be the only Republican in the general election. They also hope to avoid explicitly backing or attacking one of their own in the increasingly nasty intraparty fights in some districts.’

In Neil Rothchild’s “The Senate Democrats who keep saying no to Trump nominees” at Axios, he indicates that only 10 Democratic Senators voted against confirming Trump nominees in more than 70.3 percent of the 37 selected votes, and only two, Gillibrand and Warren, did so more than 90 percent of the time. Given Trump’s record of poorly-qualified and morally-dubious nominees, are too many Democratic senators giving them an easy ride?

“Today, the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation (NCBCP) and its offshoot — the Black Women’s Roundtable — launched the Unity ’18 Black Voting & Power Building “Time4APowerShift” campaign in Atlanta, Georgia,” reports Donna Owens at Essence magazine. “The goal is to leverage the impact of the Black vote and collective leadership, with a special emphasis on the South, Black women, and young voters. Unity ’18 is phase one of a four-year campaign that includes developing and organizing a long-term Black political and economic power building strategy. It will encompass the 2018 midterms, the 2020 Presidential election and more, including the 2020 census and redistricting that help will determine the balance of political power for the coming decade and beyond…The new campaign, said organizers, will partner more than 60 national and state-based organizations and networks, that are primarily led by Black women…There will be an emphasis on getting out the vote in places where the Black vote will be key to shifting political power, such as Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.”

Looking at two entirely different phenomena that happen to be converging at the gas pumps in the nation’s largest state, I wrote up an analysis for New York:

In most of the country, the likelihood that the president’s new fight with Iran will boost gas prices just as voters start thinking about the November midterm elections is some additional grief already embattled Republican candidates could really do without. It could be a real pocketbook problem, as CNN reports:

“Dan Eberhart, CEO of oilfield services company Canary LLC, drew a direct connection: ‘Withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal will support higher oil prices.'”

“Crude topped $70 a barrel this week for the first time in nearly four years. Hours before Trump’s announcement, federal government forecasters raised their estimate for 2018 oil prices by 10.5% to an average of $65.58 a barrel….

“Gasoline prices, which generally follow oil prices, have jumped to a national average of $2.81 a gallon, according to AAA. A gallon of gas went for $2.34 a year ago. The typical family will spend about $200 more this summer driving season, according to the Oil Price Information Service.”

But there’s a wrinkle in the potential fallout from higher gas taxes in California, where prices are already topping $4 per gallon in some locales. Prices were already rising significantly in the state thanks to a gas tax increase imposed by the Democratic-controlled legislature in 2017. The biggest increase took effect last November, but it coincided with a point in which gas stations in the state switch to a less expensive “winter blend” of fuels as smog abates. So the full weight of the tax increase is just now being felt, even as world oil and domestic gas prices are going up for various reasons, including Trump playing with fire in the Middle East.

As it happens, California voters are going to be dealing with a November ballot initiative avidly backed by the state’s Republicans, which would repeal the gas tax increase and require voter approval of future fuel tax hikes. Indeed, the struggling California GOP is hoping this measure will goose “base” turnout while convincing some swing voters that Democratic control of Sacramento is too expensive.

So that sets up an interesting situation for voters inclined to lash out at politicians for making a tank of gas cost significantly more: Do they blame Democrats for the gas tax increase or Republicans for being the party of a president who’s fecklessly throwing his weight around in the world’s most dangerous region?

You’d have to guess that if supporters of the gas tax repeal kick out the jams on advertising the easier connection between higher gas prices and higher taxes would be the easier sell. On the other hand, Democrats (and the business groups that supported the gas tax increase) will run ads making it clear that without the higher gas tax the long-overdue road and bridge repairs that are finally under way around the state will come to an abrupt halt. So easing gas prices by repealing the new taxes will come at its own price, particularly for motorists sick of potholes and traffic congestion. But punishing the GOP for Trump’s dumb foreign policies is what California’s Democratic-leaning electorate is inclined to do anyway.

The following memo by Page Gardner of Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund, Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Research and Nancy Zdunkewicz of Democracy Corps, is cross-posted from Democracy Corps: