Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer noted what they termed a remarkable fact in their Politico column yesterday: Señor Trumpanzee and Pelosi haven't spoken since she ripped up his State of the Union speech last October. Suddenly, though, "their incentives are aligned: they both want a massive Covid deal in an unthinkably quick timeframe. This may happen, it may not, but both sides seem to be rowing toward the same goal at the moment. Washington has never negotiated on a package of this magnitude this late into a presidential election year." Sherman and Palmer reminded their audience that Trump is an unpredictable, self-serving, dysfunctional sociopath-- they referred to it as "unreadable and unplayable"-- and "has no governing theory. But, in recent days, he has apparently decided that it is in his political interest to spend trillions of dollars. Pelosi has always wanted a big deal, but she’s hung on negotiating with Washington’s most eager man, Steven Mnuchin. She wanted a deal, and Mnuchin was her only option. (She has no patience for Mark Meadows, and the administration has no one else who knows what they’re doing.) Sherman and Palmer claim a deal "isn’t all too close at this moment" and they may or may not be correct. It's as close as Trump wants it to be. All he has to do is give in to Pelosi. She sent a letter to the House Democratic conference and told her colleagues that "the $1.8 trillion offer from the administration was 'one step forward, two steps back.' The letter explains where Pelosi finds fault in the GOP offer. State and local funding is 'sadly inadequate,' she said, and the two are still $200 billion off in unemployment insurance. This could be a negotiating tactic, but even if so, these are real issues that need to be solved. It's in Pelosi's interest to hold out for every last thing, given how eager the Trump administration is for a deal. Pelosi wants this too. On Thursday, during a private phone call with her leadership team, Pelosi revealed another one of her incentives to getting a deal: she thought it would be better to do it now so she didn’t have to do it early in a Biden administration." Sherman and Palmer got to a blockade to any deal: McConnell, who are already in the head-space of opposing any big spending deals (after running up the biggest peacetime deficit in history). Later in the day Sherman teamed up with another Politico writer, Burgess Everett to dig a little deeper into the scope of McConnell's and his cronies' opposition to a relief package the whole country-- meaning the voters, if not the donors-- are demanding. "Senate Republicans," they wrote, "lashed out at a potential framework for a new coronavirus deal between the Trump administration and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a conference call Saturday, warning that there was little support for a big spending bill right before the election. At least two GOP senators warned White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that spending as much as $2 trillion on a big bill could backfire at the ballot box. The administration has floated a large spending deal to Pelosi but is trying to get her to back down on some spending levels, but senators said even the White House wants to spend too much, according to multiple sources briefed on the call."
“There’s no appetite right now to spend the White House number or the House number,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), according to two sources briefed on the call. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) said that giving into Pelosi on anything seen as expansion of Obamacare in the next recovery bill will be seen as “an enormous betrayal by our supporters,” according to people familiar with the call. The pushback from Senate Republicans shows just how difficult it will be to assemble a spending bill that can garner support from enough House Democrats and Senate Republicans to satisfy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The stern response prompted Meadows to say that he would take their concerns back to President Donald Trump. Incumbent GOP senators and House Democrats are eager for a deal before the Nov. 3 election, as is Trump, who wants negotiators to “go big” now after previously telling them to pull the plug. The administration officials said no deal was done yet, but even the framework discussed on Saturday produced plenty of skepticism among the Republican ranks. This would be “the deal knell for our majority if Pelosi gets this win,” warned Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), according to one source. Both she and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) warned Republicans could lose support in the election if they accepted this. Lee offered this analogy, according to two sources briefed on the call: "This bill makes sex look like church. Lee added that the GOP’s efforts to highlight Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, who is on track to be confirmed before the election, could be hampered by a large spending deal with Pelosi. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) alleged that any such a large spending bill could deflate the economic recovery from the coronavirus devastating economic effects. “I don’t get it,” Scott said of a potential massive spending bill negotiated by Pelosi and the administration. Scott and other conservatives are eager to attack what they see as wasteful spending proposals that would go to state and local governments. Several Republicans also criticized Federal Reserve Board chairman Jay Powell, who has pushed for more stimulus.
It's all one big game for them. They're all in their own Beltway bubble world of crooked millionaires and don't feel the pain most Americans-- including most Republican voters-- are feeling. This morning. on CNN's State of the Union, Trump economics coke-freak Larry Kudlow said Señor T may out-bid the Democrats' $2.2 trillion proposal (that was cut down from a $3.2 trillion proposal by good-faith Pelosi compromise with Mnuchin by the way). Will Trump then endorse McConnell's opponent in his Senate race back in Kentucky? None of the senators quoted by Sherman and Everett are facing the voters 3 weeks from tomorrow. John Katko isn't a senator-- he's a congressman from a D+3 district in central New York-- and he is facing the voters on November 3. The district, which gave Hillary a 48.9% to 45.3% win over Trump, has been very tolerant of Katko. But that about to end. Independent voters in the district aren't happy that he's been a shill and enabler for Trump. One of the local papers noted that a recent poll showed Trump losing badly to Biden-- 53-34% in the district and the progressive Democrat taking on Katko is riding on Biden's coattails-- on the way to a 45-42% win over Katko. The pollster, Steve Greenberg said that "While 0% of Balter voters are supporting Trump, 13% of Katko supporters say they're voting for Biden. These are voters that Katko needs to hold onto and likely increase if he wants to win reelection. And it is a group that Balter likely needs to try and woo back to her side if she wants to hold or increase her narrow lead." Biden has endorsed Balter and "as Democrats hope Biden can provide a boost to Balter's chances in the 24th district, Katko is being affected by Trump's low numbers in the district. The president is viewed unfavorably by 60% of voters, according to the Siena poll. That includes 30% of Republicans. An example of GOP dissatisfaction with Trump came in late August when former Republican Congressman Jim Walsh endorsed Biden for president."
Grant Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University, thinks the main factor in how the presidential race affects the 24th district campaign is the negative view of Trump and how that hurts Katko."Trump has become a millstone around Katko's neck," Reeher wrote in an email to The Citizen. "Clearly the main campaign strategy of the Balter campaign is to associate Katko with Trump as much as possible. In this regard, the president's performance in the first debate probably hurt Katko by proxy. That might have been the last straw for some independent and even Democrat voters who were previously willing to split their ticket in order to vote for Katko. Katko will need a large chunk of split tickets in order to win, and those might be harder to come by now."In 2016, Katko didn't endorse Trump. He chose to write in former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for president instead of casting a vote for Trump, the GOP nominee. Four years later, Katko opted to endorse Trump for reelection. The endorsement was announced in January-- before the COVID-19 pandemic that killed more than 210,000 Americans and sparked an economic crisis. Katko maintains his support for Trump, despite the likely effect it's having on his own campaign."I imagine that if Katko could have seen into the future back when he said Trump was the better choice, in comparison with Biden, he might have decided differently," Reeher wrote. "But he's in a tough spot. Trump is the de facto leader of his party, and Katko has been effective in getting money for his district by not alienating him too much." Democrats are hoping that the results will be similar to 2012 when the party last won this congressional seat. That year, Democratic candidate Dan Maffei won the election and Barack Obama won reelection as president with 57% of the vote. The polls, including the Siena College survey, suggest that Biden could come close to matching Obama's 2012 total. Republicans, though, believe Katko can repeat what he did in 2016: Win reelection by outperforming the GOP presidential candidate in the district. Katko finished 16 points better than Trump in the 24th district four years ago. The difference for Katko in 2020: He's facing a tough reelection fight. It's likely that he will outperform Trump in the district, but he may lose his bid for a fourth term in Congress.
Please consider clicking on the 2020 Congress Needs More Progressive Women thermometer above and contributing what you can to Dana Balter's campaign.