The Intercept gets an audio recording of current House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) telling a candidate for Colorado's 6th U.S. House district to get out of the way of the party's more corporate choice for that seat. If you're still tempted to say "get people who can win" (and, ah, haven't considered how that worked out in 2016), remember that the party gives a leg up in endorsements and fundraising to their preferred hacks, and then uses this "success" in endorsements and fundraising to justify more help! But if these hand-picked candidates are so great, why not let the primary voters choose them? Because no one snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a Democrat, that's why.
What's worse? That Mick Mulvaney came out and said if you gave to his House campaigns, he'd talk to you, and if you didn't, he wouldn't? Or that he came out and told banksters that if they want to hamstring the agency he now (nominally) leads, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they should give more money to Congressfolk? I kid, of course -- there is actually no point in trying to decide which is the pile of dung the flies have found and which is the pile they haven't found yet. Here's a lesson for Democrats, though: Republicans didn't prevent people like Mick Mulvaney from running for Congressional seats in 2010, and they won back the House that year, and look how he's made so little go such a long way!
Ho hum, the six biggest banksters saved nearly $3.6 billion in taxes just last quarter, thanks to the massive Republican tax "reform." Also, "(b)ank executives have said the majority of the savings from the lower tax rates will be returned to shareholders in the form of higher dividends and stock buybacks," i.e., not job creation. Some enterprising Democrat should run ads like that famous Mitch McConnell ad from 1984 where hound dogs looked for his opponent, except these hound dogs would look for that supposed $4,000 boon everyone was supposed to get from corporate tax cuts. Then again, you know, Democrats.
Been hearing about the "massive fundraising advantage" Democrats allegedly have in the upcoming midterm elections? Well, don't believe the hype: NBC informs us that "(m)ajor national Republican and Democratic party groups" have spent over $48 million just on the seven Congressional special elections since January 2017, and Republican groups are outspending Democratic ones by a 3 to 1 margin. Getting a lot of bang for their buck, too, I see! Seriously, remember that when you hear that a candidate has raised x amount money, you have no idea what PAC or SuperPAC is going to inject y+z money into that race. Also, too, getting excited over who's raised what is horserace politics, and thus beneath your dignity as a citizen.
Finally, speaking of special elections, Republican Debbie Lesko won Tuesday night's special election in Arizona's 8th, but by a mere six points, in a district Republican Trent Franks had typically won by over 28 points in his races. I won't say, as one local Democrat consultant does, that a swing of 15 points here (the President won this district by 21) means a swing of 15 points everywhere, but I will say that Hiral Tipirneni's excellent showing means that Democrats can make a winning argument everywhere. Unless they bully all the liberals out of their Congressional primaries, that is.