Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Report: Hillary Will Raise $1 Billion to Defeat Vulnerable GOP Congress Members

Report: Hillary Will Raise $1 Billion to Defeat Vulnerable GOP Congress Members

The GOP can easily lose their majority in the Senate in November

The rise of Donald Trump has divided the GOP more than ever, leading many to worry if the party could maintain their majority in Congress whether he wins or loses the presidency. The Democrats have noticed and now Politico reports that Hillary Clinton plans to raise $1 billion to defeat the vulnerable GOP members of Congress:

The new concern inside the highest levels of Republican politics is that Hillary Clinton will raise $1 billion for Democrats and the party will train some of their efforts — and that money — on defeating House and Senate Republicans. Party leaders privately concede that the Senate could be lost either way. But senior House Republicans say they’re in good shape across the country, and see no evidence that the control of the chamber is in play.

I blogged on this subject last week. The overall consensus does agree that the GOP will maintain the House, but Democrats could still gain a few seats. But the GOP already barely holds the Senate and could lose their majority with only five seats, but four if Hillary wins:

In two states where Mr. Trump trails badly, recent surveys have shown the incumbents, Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, trailing their Democratic challengers. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll last week, showing Mrs. Clinton ahead by nine percentage points in North Carolina, found Richard M. Burr, who is seeking a third term in the Senate, virtually tied with his Democratic opponent.

Confidence that Republicans can limit House losses to 20 seats or fewer and retain control of that power center rests on Mr. Trump’s position stabilizing. He currently trails by seven percentage points in The New York Times average of national polls.

It doesn’t help that the GOP campaigns in the House have seen a drop “in July donations.” They only raised $4.6 million compared to the the $9.3 million they raised in June. But people have also realized the House majority is safe unlike the Senate so the RNC said they send their money to the Senate candidates:

“With some of the important votes coming in the future, like the Supreme Court nomination, and the sheer quantity of the senators up for re-election,” said Cliff Sobel, a managing director at the investment firm Valor capital and a major Republican donor, “many people are focusing their attention [on the Senate] because that seems like where the need is.”

Billionaire Paul Singer has become one of those people. He generously donated to Mitt Romney in 2012, but said he would not donate to Trump. He decided to concentrate on Congressional races in 2016. He sent $7 million “to nine super PACs backing congressional candidates” through the end of June:

A defense system is up and running in Ohio, where a super PAC supporting Sen. Rob Portman against Democrat Ted Strickland has attracted contributions from a who’s who list of heavyweight contributors. Along with Singer, who gave $750,000, the Fighting for Ohio Fund has been buoyed by ­six-figure checks from Chicago hedge fund manager Kenneth C. Griffin, Boston investor Seth Klarman and Florida-based home builder Dwight Schar.

However, the Democrats “raised $12 million in July, continuing a historic fundraising streak for a presidential year when Democrats don’t control the House.” That amount puts them at $133 million through July.

The RNC? They have raised only $114.5 million through July.

To make matters worse, Hillary still leads Trump in fundraising as well. Federal Election Commission filings show that Trump raised $35.6 million in July, but Hillary raised $52.6 million.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

You’re now likely to get a cascade of #never T-rumptards telling us how it’s all T-rumps fault.

Subotai Bahadur | August 21, 2016 at 5:41 pm

One thing generally not factored in. If a Republican House or Senate candidate is running as hard as he can away from Trump, it is not stunningly likely that Trump supporters are going to vote for them. Case in point, Michael Coffman [R-Colorado-6], who has cut and broadcast commercials in both English and Spanish promising undying opposition to Trump both during the campaign and afterwards of Trump wins. If they are going to become functional Democrats, it makes sense to vote for the actual Democrat, or not vote for the office at all, if you are a Republican so that you might be able to actually run an opponent to them in any putative future elections.

The Republican Party has, by deliberately and openly betraying its own voters for over a decade, has forfeited any assumption that they are better than or different from Democrats.

Paul Ryan, John McCain, and more than a few others who have sided with the Democrats more than with Republican voters are in a similar position.

    tom swift in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | August 21, 2016 at 6:19 pm

    The Republican Party has … forfeited any assumption that they are better than or different from Democrats.

    Worse than that—they’ve forfeited any serious claim to even be Republicans.

    The Republican presidential candidate has been chosen, and not by any trickery. And there is no alternate candidate.

    So, given that, what exactly is a Republican? A Republican is someone who will work toward getting that candidate elected.

    Nothing else will do. Perpetual grousing and deliberate sabotage are, at this point, inexcusable in anyone claiming to be a Republican. Ergo, these guys aren’t Republicans, and they don’t speak for Republicans.

    So what are they? I don’t know. Democrats? Fifth columnists? Traitors? Weirdos? It’s probably of little consequence. But Republicans, they are not.

      The Republican presidential candidate has been chosen, and not by any trickery. And there is no alternate candidate.

      True.

      So, given that, what exactly is a Republican? A Republican is someone who will work toward getting that candidate elected.

      Marginally true, but I’ll give it to you in this context. A Republican is supposed to hold certain ideals as to form of Governance and proper actions, rights and duties of the governed and those that govern.

      Nothing else will do. Perpetual grousing and deliberate sabotage are, at this point, inexcusable in anyone claiming to be a Republican. Ergo, these guys aren’t Republicans, and they don’t speak for Republicans.

      So what are they? I don’t know. Democrats? Fifth columnists? Traitors? Weirdos? It’s probably of little consequence. But Republicans, they are not.

      How about “Conservatives?” (at least some of them). I would hazard a guess that there is a smattering of semi-Libertarians (who don’t want to join that party for other reasons), and a whole bunch of Constitutionalists in there too.

      They’re NOT Republicans. Many of them have explicitly said FOR YEARS that they are not Republicans. They’re individuals that chose to align and ally with the Republican Party, and REGISTER as Republicans, because that party fit their ideals sufficiently enough that the Conservatives did not need their own Party apparatus.

      In the eyes of the #NeverTrump movement, that is no longer true.

      They were brought in under the lie of the “big tent” and then taken for granted when their ideals were marginalized, scorned and belittled. They’ve finally stood up and said “HELL NO! We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

      I’ve asked this in a couple of different places now, and I have yet to have anybody give me a good answer, based on the following premise:

      Premise: the Conservatives who won’t vote for Mr. Trump see it as this:

      “Mr. Trump = Sec. Clinton.”

      Question: Why should OTHERS betray their own principles by the action to put their support (because that is what a Vote is) toward an individual that they don’t believe in or who is actively hostile to their opinion, on the off-chance that if ENOUGH other individuals ALSO do so, that the offending person will defeat another, in their opinion, equally bad candidate?

      Now, before everybody gets all bunched up ~I~ happen to see the equation as this:

      Mr Trump ~>= Sec. Clinton (marginally greater than or equal to).

      But, I’m not going to throw stones at those who haven’t been convinced yet.

        tom swift in reply to Chuck Skinner. | August 22, 2016 at 1:27 pm

        Yes, it’s fairly obvious that Republicans and conservatives are not remotely the same thing, despite routine and lazy mental shorthand by the press and its attempts to equate the two; people who should know better do that as well.

        Republicans are a party. Conservatives are not.

        Once the candidates have been selected, it is the Republicans’ job to get them elected, ideally by means both fair and legal.

        What is the Conservatives’ job? They don’t have one, and have no obligation to work at getting either party’s candidate elected.

        But this story is specifically about Republicans, as was my comment. Conservatives are a more complex problem and should be considered separately.

        Personally, I don’t see this election as Conservatism vs. the World; this time around, conservatism didn’t manage to get on board the electoral train before it left the station. So in lieu of a respectable conservative front, I’m behind anyone who, conservative or not, seems at least willing to fight the socialist totalitarian assault on America.

    You’re spot on. Along with Coffman, Cory Gardner, Scott Tipton, & even Doug Lamborn make appearances with Michael Bennet & all laud each other over working for the “people of Colorado” to make government work for all. It’s disgusting. And Bennet is running ads against Darryl Glenn bragging that bipartisan approach of governance.

    So I echo your sentiments. Why the hell vote for such republicans given the record of the 2014 republican majority I helped elect given the personal assurances I was given by then state chair Ryan Call. Never again.

      Subotai Bahadur in reply to secondwind. | August 22, 2016 at 4:23 pm

      Lamborn’s opponent is a Democrat Male to Female Transexual named Misty Plowright. She has all the strident lovableness of being a member of the Democrats’ 3rd most favored protected class [after Muslims and Black Gansta’s] plus all the normal Democrat contempt for the Constitution and the American people. But I and others probably will vote for her. Her actual votes will be the Democrat party line, which is identical to what the GOPe eventually orders Lamborn to vote for. Lamborn refuses to fight the Democrats as either part of the minority or the majority. So the damage will be minimal. But she will almost surely absolutely piss off the district while in office. Which means if Trump is elected this year, and we have elections in 2018; we can try to replace her with a patriot. Re-electing Lamborn is no different than electing a Democrat.

      bushrat in reply to secondwind. | August 23, 2016 at 8:30 am

      But if not those already in office, then who will you vote for as your Senator and House member? Without a majority, Trump will be able to accomplish very little.

I guess HRC does have the connections to raise that billion dollars through her foreign donor programme.

    Anchovy in reply to mailman. | August 21, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    Big O just gave Iraq $400 mil because the sky is blue so they can pass that on to the Clinton Foundation and into Hillary’s pocket. I love it when people figure out how to force me to spend dollars to support people and causes I do not agree with. Think public employee unions… from my pocket to a democrats picket via collective bargaining and tax dollars.

      Milhouse in reply to Anchovy. | August 22, 2016 at 4:15 pm

      Um, what? What on earth are you talking about? When did he give Iraq anything?

      If you meant Iran, and are referring to the cash shipment, not a penny of that came from your taxes, so it’s really none of your business. I agree that it was bad policy to make that payment, and it will have all sorts of bad consequences, and he shouldn’t have done it, but it didn’t cost any of us anything.

You see, as she and other Democrats tell everyone whenever possible, they are all against the influence of big money in politics!

DieJustAsHappy | August 21, 2016 at 6:34 pm

Should this effort regarding Congress be successful, and should Hillary take the Oval Office, and should she end up appointing two or more Supreme Court Justices, than we well may end up with the worst federal government that money could buy.

    And should the GOP lose the Senate and Trump is elected, what sort of SCOTUS nominee will be confirmed? He may nominate a conservative or two, but eventually, he’d have to accept the reality that in order to get a Democrat Senate confirmation, he’ll have to nominate one they like. Either way, we end up with a liberal on the Supreme Court and a liberal Court . . . unless the Trump campaign and his fans change their tune about the Senate.

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | August 21, 2016 at 6:55 pm

      Point well taken. We’ll continue to hope that recent days are signaling some change of “tune,” although how much remains to be seen, and one that will be characterized by his using “we” more than he has to-date.

      dunce1239 in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | August 21, 2016 at 10:55 pm

      Fuzzy slippers i gave you an up vote when i meant to click reply not that your point is bad but trump can not worry what might happen in the legislature and somehow the democrats always get liberal justices approved by so called conservative republicans.you have to play to win and not have to compromise. How much compromise and how much reaching across the aisle did you see on obama care?

        Enough that we don’t (yet) have full-blown socialized medicine.

        Remember how the passage of ObamaCare was achieved, too. Not only in the middle of the night, in closed (and locked) door meetings, and via Reid’s “deem and pass” (demon pass, we called it, remember?) chicanery: We elected Scott Brown as the 41st vote against ObamaCare–destroying the Democrats’ supermajority and by extension their ability to get ObamaCare through by existing Senate rules. Reid decided to push it through as a budget matter, something that requires only a simple majority. Not one Republican voted for ObamaCare, not one.

        I hate to be in the position of defending the GOP because there is much to dislike about them and to be angry about. This, however, is not one of those of things.

          Rereading your comment, I think I missed your point in my response. You seem to be saying that it doesn’t matter if the Senate is Republican or Democrat when it comes to SCOTUS confirmations because . . . um, see this is where I lose your point. Because the Dems didn’t work with Republicans on ObamaCare, then what? The only thing that makes sense here is that the Republicans should similarly block out Democrats in SCOTUS confirmations. I’m all for that, but how do you think that’s going to happen when the Republicans don’t have even a simple majority? How can they, or Trump, “play to win” when simple math means they’ll lose (if they lose the Senate)? That is absolutely certain.

          If the Senate is lost to Dems, there will be a left-wing activist justice confirmed. Maybe more than one. Who is sent to the Senate for confirmation is immaterial if the Senate will not confirm anyone they can’t agree with in ideological terms. Trump can send the second coming of Justice Scalia, and a Democrat Senate will not confirm him. Period.

          Sure, maybe a Republican Senate will go along with a Hillary appointment, but maybe they won’t. That’s unknown (though I think Garland is in if she wins). What is known is that they will confirm a Trump nominee. There is no “win” in losing the Senate. Not for Trump, not for America.

      Only the president appoints supreme court justices. The president can, if he so chooses, wait for one of the old democrats on the court to retire and run with less than nine for his whole term.

      “…unless the Trump campaign and his fans change their tune about the Senate”

      let me fix that for you:

      unless the deranged nevertrumpers and their fans change their tune about Trump

      You want to keep the senate/house? Quit trashing the only republican running for president.

Tyrant Obama the Liar funded all Democratic politicians and their brown shirts with $750 million of the $17 billion he extorted from BoA and gave to Democratic front groups.

No one else heard Dr. Evil in the background when reading the headline?

Ummmm, Hillary’s schedule right now is practically empty. I think she really does have some kind of debilitating medical condition. Making it unlikely she will be raising a billion dollars for others in the midst of her own reelection campaign.

By the way, Trump appears to be surging. There is no doubt his supporters are MUCH more energized than Hillary’s supporters. Trump is now ahead of Hillary in the LA Times poll, and CBS just posted a new poll showing Trump ahead by 5% in Pennsylvania.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to Wisewerds. | August 21, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    I said that she’s still running demonstrates how vain and dangerous she, and he, is. Consider the stress and demands of the Presidency. Would they exacerbate her condition? What of any medication? Would it negatively impact her cognitive abilities? Is she (they) thinking that if she needs 96 hours off Bill can handle things behind the scene?

    These I am, of course, asking rhetorically, because I believe they add to the fact that she’s simply unfit for the Oval Office, or any office for that matter.

      Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 22, 2016 at 1:15 am

      Don’t think for an instant that if she were elected, she’d surrender the levers of power for an instant to Kaine, let alone Billy Jeff.

The 1% unmasked. $1 billion dollars, foreign, domestic, and welfare, guarantees the best anti-American politicians money can buy.

There’s a slant on the senate elections too. If Trump wins and the Senate goes 50/50, the Dems will promptly scream “filibuster” on every single nominee, SCOTUS or not, until they get what they want. If Trump loses and the Senate goes 50/50, expect an immediate vote to remove the filibuster from Senate procedures, followed by a pre-written list of nominees which will get the Giant Rubber Stamp of Approval 51/whateveritdoesn’tmatter as they’re shoved through at full speed.

Two points to make.

1. I find it interesting that Mrs Bill Clinton has screeched about Citizens United and the need to get “big money” out of politics will spend over a billion dollars in this election cycle.

2. If the Republicans lose big this fall, all I can say to Mitch, Ryan and Reece, you’ve eared this ass kicking. I’ve said for ages that 2016 is the Republican’s race to lose and they will do their best to blow it. I figured it would be by actually getting another milquetoast (see Jeb!) and pissing off the base. No they let a populist with no knowledge of how to run a campaign win the nomination, instead of a true conservative (see Walker, Paul, Cruz). Different method, same result, the decline of America to a second rate economic and military powers, ala France.

buckeyeminuteman | August 22, 2016 at 10:57 am

When the vote to confirm Lynch as AG was coming up, I wrote a letter to Sen. Portman of Ohio telling him I would never vote for him again if he confirmed Lynch. And now the Republicans are in danger of losing the Senate. I’d hate to see the Dems take the Senate, especially with Hillary as POTUS. But people like Portman need to understand that their votes should have consequences in the elections.

These career politicians have us by the balls!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend