Patterico's Pontifications


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Delays Vote Until After July 4 Recess

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:02 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Apparently not enough votes to push forward the Senate health-care bill in its current form:

Facing intransigent Republican opposition, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has told senators he will delay a vote on his legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, dealing President Trump an embarrassing setback on a key part of his agenda.

Republican leaders had hoped to take a page from the playbook used to get a bill over the line in the House, appeasing the most conservative members of their conference while pressuring moderates to fall in line with fewer concessions.

But as opposition mounted in both camps, even against a vote just to take up the bill, Mr. McConnell decided he would delay consideration until after the Senate’s weeklong July 4 recess.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) believes that there are more than just five Republican senators opposed to the current legislation. [The five being Dean Heller, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, Susan Collins.]

Surprisingly, Sen. Ted Cruz has not revealed his hand:

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was among those Republicans who shared concerns in weekend calls with Trump.

“We continue to make progress,” Cruz told reporters Monday, as Democrats, who oppose the bill, planned an almost-all-night protest session.

Cruz is part of the gang of four conservatives — including Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky — who have said they cannot vote for the bill as is. Among the changes being pursued is one provision that would allow insurers to offer cheaper policies that do not meet ACA’s requirements and another to let consumers sock more money into health savings accounts

“We can get there and I’m hopeful we will get there,” Cruz said. However, he declined to say whether he would agree to Wednesday’s procedural vote.


(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


CNN Is Having A Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week… And It’s Only Tuesday

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:41 am

[guest post by Dana]

CNN supervising producer John Bonifield is caught in an undercover video by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas admitting there is a lack of proof regarding possible involvement between President Trump’s campaign and Russia:

“I mean, it’s mostly bullshit right now,” Bonifield says. “Like, we don’t have any giant proof.”

He confirms that the driving factor at CNN is ratings:

“It’s a business, people are like the media has an ethical phssssss…All the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school you’re just like, that’s adorable. That’s adorable. This is a business.”

According to the CNN Producer, business is booming. “Trump is good for business right now,” he concluded.

Bonifield further goes on to explain that the instructions come straight from the top, citing the CEO, Jeff Zucker:

“Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we’re done with that, let’s get back to Russia.”

Bonifield also acknowledged: “I haven’t seen any good enough evidence to show that the President committed a crime.” He continues:

“I just feel like they don’t really have it but they want to keep digging. And so I think the President is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me. You have no smoking gun, you have no real proof.”

Also, yesterday it was reported that 3 CNN journalists resigned after being involved in a bit of messy report that ended with an apology and retraction of their story:

Three prominent journalists at CNN resigned on Monday after the cable news network was forced to retract and apologize for a story on its website involving a close ally of President Trump.

The article — linking Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge-fund manager and Trump confidant, to a Russian investment fund supposedly being investigated by the Senate — was removed from late last week after the network decided it could not fully stand by its reporting.

The resignations are a black eye at a sensitive moment for the news organization, which has emerged as a regular target of Mr. Trump and his supporters. The president relishes dismissing the network’s coverage as “fake news,” and his closest advisers have accused the channel of harboring a bias against Mr. Trump.

CNN’s president, Jeffrey A. Zucker, has invested enormous resources into political and investigative coverage of the Trump White House, and he was deeply upset by last week’s reporting errors, according to two people briefed on the network’s discussions over the weekend who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Zucker helped lead an internal inquiry that found the story was published despite concerns expressed by CNN’s standards team, the people said. Thomas Frank, a veteran reporter who wrote the story; Lex Haris, executive editor of investigations; and Eric Lichtblau, an investigative editor and reporter hired from The New York Times in April, submitted resignations on Monday morning.

Also noted in the NYT, this comes on the heels of CNN firing Kathy Griffin for her tasteless photo of her holding a facsimile of Trump’s severed head, ties cut with CNN special host Reza Aslan after he tweeted some vulgar stuff toward President Trump, and being compelled to publish a correction on another story that “inaccurately predicted the congressional testimony of James B. Comey”. The report adds: “CNN’s investigative work has won plaudits this year, and the network had highlighted the hiring of marquee journalists as a sign of its commitment to reporting.”

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)



Supreme Court: Masterpiece Cakeshop Appeal Will Be Heard

Filed under: General — Dana @ 2:00 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Not on today’s order list, but a case that has drawn a lot of attention from all sides is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This case involves a Colorado bakery owner and cake artist whose religious beliefs precluded him from providing a custom wedding cake for the same-sex marriage of David Mullins and Charlie Craig. Today the court agreed to hear an appeal from the baker:

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal from a Colorado baker with religious objections to same-sex marriage who had lost a discrimination case for refusing to create a cake to celebrate such a union.

The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111, started in 2012, when the baker, Jack Phillips, an owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., refused to create a cake for the wedding reception of David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who were planning to marry in Massachusetts. The couple filed discrimination charges, and they won before a civil rights commission and in the courts.

Mr. Phillips, who calls himself a cake artist, argued that two parts of the First Amendment — its protections for free expression and religious freedom — overrode a Colorado anti-discrimination law and allowed him to refuse to create a custom wedding cake.

In 2015, a Colorado appeals court ruled against Mr. Phillips. “Masterpiece does not convey a message supporting same-sex marriages merely by abiding by the law and serving its customers equally,” the court said.

In a Supreme Court brief, Mr. Phillips’s lawyers said “ He is happy to create other items for gay and lesbian clients.” But his faith requires him, they said, “to use his artistic talents to promote only messages that align with his religious beliefs.”

“Thus,” the brief said, “he declines lucrative business by not creating goods that contain alcohol or cakes celebrating Halloween and other messages his faith prohibits, such as racism, atheism, and any marriage not between one man and one woman.”

The brief said Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig could have bought a cake from another baker and in fact “easily obtained a free wedding cake with a rainbow design from another bakery.”

Jack Phillips commented on today’s news:

“Regardless of your viewpoint about same-sex marriage, shouldn’t we all agree that the government shouldn’t force us to speak or act in a way that violates our deepest convictions?” Phillips queried in his prepared statement. “Like the one in Colorado will result in kind-hearted Americans being dragged before state commissions and courts, and punished by the government for peacefully seeking to live and work consistent with their beliefs about marriage? The couple who came to my shop that day 5 years ago are free to hold their beliefs about marriage, and all I ask is that I be allowed the equal opportunity to keep mine.”

Lawyers Kristen Waggoner and Michael Farris also commented:

“It’s never been about Jack’s willingness to sell products or services to people based on who they are,” he said. “If an LGBT person came to his cake shop wanting to buy a pre-existing cake, he’d be happy to for any purpose.”

But both Farris and Waggoner said that requiring him to write messages that go against his religious beliefs, including one promoting same-sex marriage, is where he draws the line.

The lawyers for the couple involved, responded:

“[I]t is no answer to say that Mullins and Craig could shop somewhere else for their wedding cake, just as it was no answer in 1966 to say that African-American customers could eat at another restaurant.”

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


Supreme Court Allows Most Of Trump Administration Travel Ban

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:22 am

[guest post by Dana]

Giving the Trump administration some victory after the administration’s temporary travel ban was held up by lower courts, the Supreme Court announced today that the majority of the administration’s temporary travel ban can go into effect:

The Supreme Court is allowing to go into effect the executive order’s temporary ban on entry into the U.S. of citizens of six Muslim-majority nations, but with an exception for people with bona fide connections to the United States. That includes foreign nationals with familial connections in the U.S., students who have been already admitted into an American university, or workers with existing job offers in the U.S.

For people with these bona fide connections, the injunctions put in place by the lower courts are upheld and these individuals will not be banned under the executive order from coming into the U.S.

But anyone else from the six listed countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — and refugees who do not have bona fide connections to the U.S. will be subject to the temporary ban on entry into the United States.

The newly revised travel ban can go partly into effect this week. Arguments are set to be heard in October, which will be past the 90-day review period.

This is interesting:

Notably absent from the court’s decision is any analysis of Trump’s campaign statements. Moreover, the only dissenters from the opinion (justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas) wanted the injunctions vacated in their entirety. They are correct that the court’s ruling will invite further litigation as litigants test the boundaries of the “bona fide relationships,” but the difference between the dissenters and the six remaining justices was only over the proper extent of Trump’s legal victory. For now, the constitutional and statutory primacy of the executive and legislative branches over national security and immigration has been restored.

The judges in the courts below have been celebrated as heroic resistance figures. Yet now even the Supreme Court’s most liberal justices have rejected the lower courts’ overreach.

President Trump released a statement regarding the court’s decision:

“Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security,” he said in a statement.

“Today’s ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our nation’s homeland,” he added. “I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0.”

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)



Two Noted Feminists And Scholars Ignored By Female Democrats Respond To Reader Questions

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:41 am

[guest post by Dana]

Last week I posted about a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee hearing in which two of the four witnesses invited to testify about political Islam were female scholars with unique insights and real-life experiences to offer: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani. This in spite of New Republic’s Sarah Jones notifying readers from her perch that they were unreliable witnesses and should be disqualified from giving testimony. When the hearing was held, it was clear that the two women of color, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani, in a “strategy of deflection and demonization,” were pointedly ignored by the four female Democratic senators, and instead chose to turn their attention to the two white males on the panel.

Given that the report in the New York Times about this generated an unbelievable amount of comments, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani have responded to a few of the many questions posed by readers. Both women noted, after not being asked relevant questions about political Islam, that it was “an experience…emblematic of a troubling trend among progressives to overlook the brutal reality of Islamist extremism”.

Perhaps Kamala Harris, one of the four Democratic women who ignored Ali and Nomani, and who has fundraised off her belief that women, herself included, are unable to be simultaneously courteous and courageous, might want to take note of the elegant display of both courtesy and steely resolve in Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s and Asra Nomani’s interaction with readers.

FDR ASKS: Fellow progressives, hear me out …

These ladies have a point. The left in general has given a pass to Islamism. We need to be able to criticize Islam’s worst without fear from political correctness. We need to demand from Muslim friends and colleagues the same, as well as verbal acceptance of basic Western and Enlightenment values such as women’s equality. Let’s recapture the discourse and this banner from the right.

I think this is a good way to approach the subject of Shariah and in particular the attitudes of many Muslims to the rights of women, the L.G.B.T. community, blasphemy laws, apostasy and dissent.

First, what is needed is critical self-reflection on the morals and agenda to which people on the left say they are committed. Look squarely at the real consequences of that agenda, both good and bad. Second, apply the idea of equality to all individuals regardless of their identity. Human rights are universal. And human rights are held by individuals, not by groups. The left today has a growing tendency to prioritize group rights over individual rights, partly driven by “intersectionality.” This is often what gets them in a moral bind. The rights of individual human beings should always come before those of the tribe or the collective.

If one finds white male sexism intolerable, then one should by definition find all male sexism just as intolerable. Excusing men of color, Muslims, immigrants or men living in non-Western societies for bad behavior toward women is an expression of the bigotry of low expectations.

The result of this mindset is that Christianity — still “the white man’s religion” in the eyes of many — is criticized for every misstep against women but Islam is protected from the glare of scrutiny. In its extreme form, relativism excuses Muslim men from universal standards because they are said to be victims of colonialism and of recent military invasions; because they are new immigrants who face cultural alienation; and because they cannot be deprived of their last source of pride: their domination over their women in their communities. I reject this line of reasoning. Anyone who believes in human rights should too.

In Europe, and in the United States, we need to defend universal women’s rights. Thorny religious and cultural problems need to be addressed, and discussed openly. There is no reason why this should be, or be viewed as, a partisan issue.

I have taught English in Brooklyn for a number of years to immigrant women from all over the Muslim world, and I have ties to the community. So I was bothered by your article. Progressives abhor those abuses of women — F.G.M. (female genital mutilation), honor killings, etc. — that you mention. However, what Americans are fighting against here is the blanket vilification of Islam by everyone from the president to Republican congresspeople. None of us progressives favor extremes of Islam, or of any other religion for that matter. In this country (and in Congress) we have extreme right-wing Christians who want nothing more than to take away the rights of women. Don’t make the mistake of thinking you have allies in Republican men (or women). You don’t.

Thank you for your service helping immigrant women build their bridges to the United States. Just as you speak so passionately about the threat of “extreme right-wing Christians,” we argue that progressives would be well-served to be equally passionate about “extreme right-wing Muslims.” As long as progressives refuse to isolate “extreme right-wing Muslims,” as readily as we do “extreme right-wing Christians,” we will continue to face a situation in which the ill-informed will conflate “extreme right-wing” Muslims with those who are not. In the same way that we should not judge all Muslims by the actions of extremist Muslims, it’s not appropriate to judge Republicans by the actions of the far right. If progressives truly want to challenge the “blanket vilification” of Muslims, it would be helpful to rip off that blanket and differentiate “extreme right-wing Muslims” from those who are not. Just as we oppose white supremacists, we should oppose Muslim supremacists.

Please take the time to read the rest of the Q&A’s. They are insightful and provocative.

Perusing Twitter responses to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani’s writing in the NYT, I thought this, albeit sadly, and yet amusingly sums up the idiocy. And this coming from a woman who describes herself as a filmmaker for a “more just society for women”:


Thankfully, there are those willing to gently correct such ignorance:


(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)



Surprising Number Of Threats And Attacks Against GOP Congressmen

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:42 pm

[guest post by Dana]

A report notes that 30 GOP congressmen have been attacked or been the victims of a death threat since May. Here are a few examples:

May 8: Wendi Wright, 35, was arrested after stalking Rep. David Kustoff (Tenn.) and trying to run him off the road. After pulling over, Wright “began to scream and strike the windows on Kustoff’s car and even reached inside the vehicle.”

June 14: Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.), and Reps. Steve Scalise (La.), Kevin Brady (Texas), Jack Bergman (Mich.), Mike Bishop (Mich.), Mike Conaway (Texas), Roger Williams (Texas), John Moolenaar (Mich.), Gary Palmer (Ala.), Chuck Fleischmann (Tenn.), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Barry Loudermilk (Ga.), Mark Walker (N.C.), Steve Pearce (N.M.), Brad Wenstrup (Ohio), Rodney Davis (Ill.), Jeff Duncan (S.C.), Trent Kelly (Miss.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), and Joe Barton (Texas) were attacked by a gunman during a baseball practice in Alexandria, Va.

Scalise, the House majority whip, was shot in the hip, and remains in the hospital. Four others were injured, including a staffer for Williams and two Capitol Police officers assigned to Scalise.

The same day, New York Rep. Claudia Tenney received an email reading, “One down, 216 to go.”

June 17: Missouri Rep. Ann Wagner revealed that she had gotten five death threats in the weeks leading up to the Scalise shooting. Wagner said that protesters had been “vandalizing my home, showing up with masks and gravestones, and laying down on my driveway and drawing chalk outlines of dead bodies. Picketing my church at 8 and 10 o’clock Mass.”

June 22: An Ohio man was arrested for leaving a voicemail threatening the life and family of Rep. Steve Stivers (Ohio).

“We’re coming to get every goddamn one of you and your families. Maybe the next one taken down will be your daughter. Huh? Or your wife. Or even you,” the man said.

The same day, Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz played a threatening voicemail he had received on “Fox & Friends.”

“I suggest you prepare for the battle motherf**ker, and the apocalypse,” the caller yelled. “Because we are going to hunt your ass down, wrap a rope around your neck, and hang you from a lamppost.”

Aside from the law, death threats and attacks are reprehensible, and can never, ever be justified. No matter how much an individual detests Trump or how angry one might be about Hillary’s loss, nothing makes these okay. Even when it’s a GOP congressman-elect who has done the attacking, there is no justification. At the very least, let’s don’t drag Jesus into this unholy mess in an attempt to justify such behaviors – either threats of death or physical attacks:

Jesus assaulted and bodily threw the money changers out of the temple who were trespassing in Gods’ house.

Greg Gianforte emulated Jesus by assaulting Ben Jacobs, who was trespassing and invading his privacy. He also proved to be a real Montanan to his supporters who are not self-proclaimed Christians but abide by the teachings and actions of Jesus.

God help us all.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)



The President Tweets Without Discernment Or Discretion, Part 513

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:21 am

[guest post by Dana]

Words matter. But apparently not if you’re the President of the United States. And not if it concerns matters that are of a rather serious nature.





Go ahead, tell me he’s playing the media and his enemies like a fiddle.

I can’t even.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


Senate Health Care Bill Released

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:44 am

[guest post by Dana]

During interview with Sen. Ted Cruz over at the Daily Wire this week, Ben Shapiro asked Cruz about the GOP’s health care bill:

SHAPIRO: If the Senate rubber stamped the House bill, would you support it, given that the House bill didn’t actually repeal Obamacare in many crucial ways?

CRUZ: The first version of the House bill was very problematic and there were many issues with it – first and foremost, that it didn’t do nearly enough to drive down premiums. I think the House Freedom Caucus improved the bill significantly. They focused quite rightly on the need to drive down premiums. The Senate needs to go much further than the House Bill. We need to improve it significantly more. I don’t know if the Senate will do so or not. It is what I have been working day and night, practically every waking hour for he last five months to do: bring senators together to get that done.

SHAPIRO: Are you worried that Republicans will pass a bill that doesn’t repeal Obamacare, declare victory, then watch as premiums skyrocket and the free market is blamed for what is essentially a continuation of a heavily government-regulated Obamacare system?

CRUZ: There are two bad outcomes that are possible. One bad outcome is that we fail to repeal Obamacare – we fail to pass any bill at all. For the past seven years we’ve campaigned promising the voter that we would repeal the disaster that is Obamacare, that has cost millions of Americans their jobs, thrown them into part-time jobs, cost them their doctors, caused premiums to skyrocket. If we fail to deliver after being given every branch of government, that’s profoundly harmful both as a substantive matter of policy but also as a political matter. The credibility of Republicans would be deeply, deeply undermined.

There’s a second outcome that’s even worse than that. We pass a bill titled “Obamacare Repeal,” but doesn’t in fact repeal Obamacare — in fact expands it. We hold a press conference patting ourselves on the back, claiming to have repealed it. And then next year, premiums continue to skyrocket and it’s demonstrated that what Republicans said isn’t true. I think that has even greater policy harms and political harms. So I’m trying to avoid both of those. I’m trying to get Republicans in the Senate and the House and the President and the Vice President to do what we said we would do. That’s what I’m urging all the players to do.

This morning, the GOP’s Senate repeal plan was released. You can read it here. You can also read Mitch McConnell’s discussion draft here.

As Allahpundit commented :

McConnell’s team put out a fact sheet this morning detailing their major changes to ObamaCare — or non-changes, I should say. Yeah, the mandate’s gone and there’s a massive (delayed) rollback of Medicaid, but the premium subsidies are still there, they’re still pegged to income, and there’s a bunch of new money ($25 billion) appropriated to stabilize ObamaCare’s rickety exchanges over the next four years. There’s also money set aside for two years of cost-sharing subsidies, which the House GOP has spent three years fighting in court on grounds that they never appropriated those funds in the first place. In other words, in at least one respect, the Senate bill is … an expansion of ObamaCare.

All in all, the bill’s a jumble of provisions designed to shore up the current law and, bizarrely, to make it less sustainable. With the mandate gone, many O-Care taxes repealed, and the cost-sharing subsidies marked for phase-out in 2019, much of the revenue needed to keep the exchanges buoyant is set to disappear over the next few years.

A vote on the bill is set for next Thursday. The CBO plans to release estimates for the Senate health care bill next week. And some senators are expressing concerns that there may not be enough time to fully process the bill before next week’s scheduled vote.

Here are a few quick reactions from conservatives to the bill’s release this morning:

SEN. RAND PAUL (Kentucky): “Conservatives have always been for repealing Obamacare, and my concern is that this doesn’t repeal Obamacare,” he said as he was walking back to his office through the Capitol tunnel.

“What I’m seeing so far is it keeps 10 out of 12 regulations, it continues the Obamacare subsidies, and I think ultimately will not bring down premiums,” he continued, “because instead of trying to fix the death spiral of Obamacare, it simply subsidizes it with taxpayer money to insurance companies.”

SEN. RON JOHNSON (Wisconsin): “The primary driver of premium increases is guaranteed issue,” he told reporters, referring to the ACA provision that bars insurers from rejecting customers. “Who would buy auto insurance if you could buy insurance after you’ve crashed your car?” Johnson said. “Well, that’s the exact same reason that guaranteed issue, when it’s been passed in states, is collapsing insurance markets, is collapsing the Obamacare market.” He would prefer that people with pre-existing conditions be taken care of through high-risk pools.

Further, here is an interesting look at the senators who have concerns about the bill, and some who may be considering voting “no”.

Happy reading.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)



Stabbing Of Police Officer In Flint, Michigan Being Investigated As An Act Of Terrorism

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:31 pm

[guest post by Dana]

The FBI is currently investigating the brutal stabbing of a police officer at the airport in Flint, Michigan:

A police officer was stabbed in the back and neck Wednesday at an airport in Flint, Michigan, and the suspect is in custody and being questioned, according to authorities.

The police officer, identified as Lt. Jeff Neville, is in stable condition, said Lt. David Kaiser, a spokesman for the Michigan State Police. He was stabbed on the public side of Bishop International Airport’s main terminal, according to the Transportation Security Administration.

All passengers are safe and were evacuated, the airport said on Facebook. A law enforcement official said the stabbing appears to have targeted law enforcement.

According to witnesses, the attacker, identified as Amor Ftouhi was heard shouting “Allahu akbar” before stabbing Neville. According to reports, Ftouhi is currently being questioned by officials. He is said to be from Quebec and holds a Canadian passport. It is not known why he was in Flint. Reports suggest he may have entered the United States illegally in June. According to the AP, the FBI is saying Ftouhi talked about people being killed in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point, officials are saying the suspect was a lone wolf attacker, and there is no indication of a “wider plan”. Finally, at a news conference, FBI Special Agent in Charge David P. Gelios said that Ftouhi “said something similar to “you have killed people in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and we are all going to die” as he was being arrested. Gelios added that the knife used by Ftouhi was 12-inches with an 8-inch serrated blade.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)



Republican Karen Handel Defeats Democrat Jon Ossoff In Georgia Special Election

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:35 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Democrats from across the country reportedly pumped at least $23 million into Ossoff’s campaign, to no avail:

Republican Karen Handel defeated Democrat Jon Ossoff in a high-stakes special election for a Georgia House seat on Tuesday, denying Democrats their first major victory of the Donald Trump era.

Handel bested Ossoff by 5 percentage points in the most expensive House race in history.

California Bay Area Democrats hardest hit:

Georgia congressional candidate Jon Ossoff, who’s turned his special election race next week into a referendum on President Donald Trump, reported receiving almost as much money from the Bay Area than from the entire state of Georgia over the last two months. He also reported receiving almost nine times as many individual donations from California than from Georgia, according to federal campaign finance data released last week…In money raised, Ossoff has blown Handel out of the water — thanks in part to the Golden State. Between March 29 and May 31, Ossoff reported receiving 7,218 donations from California, dwarfing the 808 donations he received from Georgia. In the nine Bay Area counties alone, he received 3,063 donations in the same time period. (Those are only a fraction of his total donations, as he doesn’t have to report donations from people who give less than $200 in total.) Overall, he reported receiving $456,296.03 from California — and $220,532.10 from the Bay Area — versus just $228,474.44 from Georgia. That’s an even larger disparity than from his earlier donations report in April…But for out of state donors, the idea of sticking one to Trump with an Ossoff win is the big draw.

Here’s a fascinating breakdown of the money involved in the most expensive U.S. House race in history.

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1903 secs.