We Lost CA-25, Katie Hill's Seat

[sfstaxprep]

California House 25

Last updated: 5/12/2020, 8:16:50 PM

Candidate Votes Percent
Mike Garcia (R) 77,459 55.67%
Christy Smith (D) 61,679 44.33%

70.55% reporting (206 of 292 precincts) 139,138 total votes

[diva77]

1. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

That SUCKS BIG TIME!!!!!!



Stinkin' Trump Pandemic took the wind out of Christy Smith's campaign

[mwooldri]

2. How many turkeys are voting for Thanksgiving? Yikes! NT

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I am very disappointed. But we knew it was going to be close.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

46. Is this seat the Congresswoman who resigned due to allegations of an affair with a staffer?

You see stuff like this happens once in a while where a seat flips due to the previous occupant resigning in scandal. I don't think it's indicative of any kind of GOP resurgence even if they treat it like one.

[mvd]

4. Will be up again in November

Hopefully a Biden win will carry momentum back to the Democrats.

[rpannier]

33. Yes, it will

Problem with winning that area is that it's probably the second or third most conservative area in California: Kern County is pretty conservative and probably the most conservative, Modoc County with its welfare-Libertarians is probably second and then Simi Valley which is a large chunk of the district
Probably are not going to win it again unless this twit they elected turns out to be a nut

[Blue_Tires]

39. Good...

[JI7]

5. Isn't there going to be another election in November for this Seat again ?

This is just to fill the remaining of Hill's term .

[Cha]

11. That's interesting.. TY! Another chance.

[BGBD]

6. Premature

That's not 70% of the vote, all you are seeing right now is the early mail in ballots, we don't even know how many votes are left to count.

Best to let this one play out a bit more.

[Celerity]

24. +100000

[diva77]

7. CA-25 desperately needs what Dems have to offer. Must be the Fux/Limburger effect causing them

to vote against their best interests.

[rpannier]

34. CA-25 includes Simi Valley

Lots of money there
Very conservative area
Since they seem to only care about having lots of police to thwart crime and getting low taxes, it's hard to argue that Simi Valley votes against its own interests

[Amishman]

37. sounds like they vote exclusively in their own interests

if they are a bunch of rich people wanting to protect their wealth above all else, they are doing exactly what they should to achieve that selfish goal.

They are voting against the common interests of the greater public

edit: the way the sentence wrapped, i misread what rpannier was saying. I'll still leave this though since I agree.

[diva77]

40. True. I was thinking of Lancaster and Palmdale which are also part of CA-25.

[saidsimplesimon]

8. Have Dems verified that

vote count? Can anyone share an analysis of votes by mail versus in person?

[BGBD]

9. That is

ONLY the early vote by mail. It doesn't include the in-person vote or drop offs from today yet.

California is slow to count votes, it'll be counting for a while.

[Cha]

12. TY!

[BGBD]

20. Don't get me wrong

It would be a lot better if we were only down 6 or 7% in the early vote, but these are some pretty Republican heavy returns. There's definitely a chance there are enough democratic votes from late mail ins and todays vote to hand it back to us.

This is a traditionally R district and regardless of results today, it's likely to go back to D in the fall when there is a regular election with regular turnout.

[Cha]

21. Thanks.. I wasn't.. I was just happy to learn there

maybe a chance.

Mahalo for the further information.. a chance for Christy Smith in the Fall if this doesn't pan out.

[chillfactor]

10. so we lost all special election seats tonight.

[Blue_true]

13. As one poster pointed out, California results could take a while.

In 2018, there were cases where Dems were behind on the early mailin votes, but won the day of and late mailin votes big. Unfortunately, MAGATS vote early while Dems wait, that is bad because you never know what may happen to disrupt voting, better to vote early.

[herding cats]

16. Maybe, but I deeply suspect this one is gone.

78,701, 55.9% R

62,054, 44.1% D

All things considered, this isn't close.

Democrats just didn't return their ballots, sadly.

[Blue_true]

19. There was a race in 2018 where the democrats was that far behind and won

by around 2%. Democrats are just slow to return ballots, that drives me nuts. The republican had around a 10% advantage on early returns, those are what got counted. Now we see if Smith can make that up with late returns and day of voting, which heavily favored democrats in 2018.

Also, do you remember that Sanders had something like a 20% advantage over Biden in early votes, Biden wiped almost all that out on late ballots and day of voting. MAGATS were roused up, they voted early big. Your concern is valid, if late Dem votes and day of votes are weak, that early surge may hold for the republican.

Lastly, Dem voters may feel burned by Katie Hill. Her former husband was a bore, but people seeking public office should avoid stuff that can be viewed negatively.

[herding cats]

25. I'm deeply hoping you're right on the first two points.

It's a minor loss at worst, I know that. I'm not feeling defeated in the least if we lose this, just more focused on motivating Democrats to vote.

Your third point is also valid. Which doesn't mean in a worst case scenario we couldn't take it back in November.

Thanks for the wise words. They hit home with me.

[herding cats]

14. If we don't vote, we don't win.

I'd have thought we'd have learned this lesson by now.

[Beaverhausen]

15. Hill won it in the 2018 blue wave and it was very close

I’m not surprised by this. That area is fairly red.

[herding cats]

17. Yep.

It's still a shame to see it revert back.

[Celerity]

23. Hill won by around 9% in 2018, a bigger margin than McKnight had won by before

[former9thward]

47. CA-25 has a 3,000 Democratic voter registration edge.

Its no longer "fairly red."

[sfstaxprep]

18. My Apologies

I thought that it was really 70% of the votes counted, and that's a pretty big margin to make up with less than 1/3rd of votes remaining to count.

Hopefully she can make up some ground when more votes come in.

[Cha]

22. No worries.. Thank you.

[dustyscamp]

26. This is a reality check for people thinking that we have these elections in the bag

We need to go out and convince more people to vote blue. In person and online. We need all the votes we can get.

[Celerity]

28. +100000

[Celerity]

27. Tracking data shows a significant voting gap along generational and ethnic lines.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/12/us/elections/results-california-house-district-25-special-general-election.html?action=click&module=ELEX_results&pgtype=Interactive

Jennifer Medina
Jennifer Medina 7m ago

Tracking data shows a significant voting gap along generational lines. Roughly 56% of voters 65 and older returned a mail ballot. Just 19% of those younger than 35 did so.

Jennifer Medina
Jennifer Medina 7m ago

There’s a voting gap along ethnic lines, too: While 40% of white voters returned their mail ballots, only 21% of Latinos did so.

snip

If Mike Garcia's lead over Christy Smith holds, he'll become the only House Republican from a district Hillary Clinton won with more than 50% of the vote.

If the Garcia pulls this off, this would be the first D seat that flips R in CA since 1998.


I have to think COVID-19 came into play, as Dems are more likely to attempt to stay safe (not go vote and instead self-isolate) than Rethugs are, plus the Rethug goons are all running riot over Newsom's lockdowns.

[sfstaxprep]

29. COVID-19 Was Irrelevant

Stay at home did not play a role, since Mail In Voting was being allowed.

[diva77]

30. It was relevant in that the door-to-door canvassing, postcards and rallies that had been done in

the prior successful campaign were not an option in the critical weeks approaching election day this time.

[Celerity]

36. that was not the main point of my reply, and not everyone is even aware of mail-in voting

plus many move and the ballot never gets to them

plus like the other reply to you, it hurt our GOTV efforts

but again, my main point was the younger age cohorts and Latinx cohorts really turning out in poor numbers for us



we are political junkies on here

half or so of the US population at large doesn't even know who Pence is

close to 45% of all US voters did not even vote in 2016

these are POTUS election years, the turnout in the US is shit compared to almost every other advanced Western nation



compare this to Swedish turnout

In the 2018 Riksdag (our parliament) election, we had 87.2 percent voter turnout



when I went to UCLA a couple of years back, I was staggered at how little political knowledge many, many people had

[Retrograde]

45. Mail-in voting not only allowed

but heavily encouraged. I believe all registered voters in this district were sent a ballot which they could fill in and return at their leisure.

[global1]

31. Maybe The Repugs Are Using This Election As A Test Vote For Cheating & Stealing.....

votes. They probably had some new method to employ and they wanted to see if it would work in this election. If successful - they can then use it in November. I would want the CA officials to really scrutinize this vote to see if there was any funny stuff going on.

I hate to be 'tinfoil hat' here - but the Repugs have a lot at stake in November and the pressure will be on them to suppress/steal votes and cheat.

[Amishman]

38. i think it is just a matter of a lack of focus by our supporters

we know republicans, especially elderly ones, vote every time.

our base is younger, more easily distracted. I think complacency and Covid-19 hurt our ballot return and lost a seat.

this is also a seat that prior to 2018 was fairly reliably red. This is less of an upset and more of a return to the average.

[DeminPennswoods]

32. Dave Wasserman

described Garcia as a GOP "unicorn", the perfect candidate for this district. Also, Dems reportedly expected to lose it.

[Celerity]

35. months before any scandal, a centrist Pac w/ Dems was backing Garcia against Katie Hill

Democrat-backed Centrist PAC Is Supporting a Republican Against a Vulnerable Swing-District Incumbent

July 19 2019, 5:33 p.m

https://theintercept.com/2019/07/19/centrist-democrats-target-freshman-representative/

THE POLITICAL ACTION committee affiliated with a bipartisan caucus on Capitol Hill is spending money to back a Republican challenge to Rep. Katie Hill of California, a freshman Democrat who has been an independent and at times progressive voice in the House, despite serving in a district previously held by the GOP. Hill is what’s known as a “front-liner” in Democratic caucus politics, because she’ll face a difficult challenge to hold on to her seat in California’s 25th District. Mike Garcia, an Iraq War veteran, launched his campaign in April, and the With Honor PAC jumped in to support him that same month. House Democratic leadership crafts its entire political and legislative strategy around protecting front-liners like Hill, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently chastised the caucus for criticizing vulnerable front-liners, suggesting they hit her instead.

That makes the support for a Republican challenger from the For Country Caucus, which includes at least 10 Democrats, fairly remarkable, particularly as House incumbents have launched a full-blown counterrevolution against the so-called Squad and the organization that backs them, Justice Democrats, accusing them of undermining the party by targeting incumbents.

Justice Democrats, which became a prominent actor in Democratic politics after helping elect Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, however, has so far not endorsed a single challenger to a front-line Democrat, even as a new centrist caucus backs a Republican against Hill. The caucus is co-chaired by California Democrat Jimmy Panetta, who was first elected in 2016 and is the son of longtime Democratic operative and former Rep. Leon Panetta. The caucus also includes Democratic Reps. Seth Moulton, Mass., Chrissy Houlahan, Pa., Gil Cisneros, Calif., Jason Crow, Colo., Jared Golden, Maine, Conor Lamb, Pa., Elaine Luria, Va., Max Rose, N.Y., and Mikie Sherrill of N.J.

None of the caucus members responded to a request for comment.

In 2018 primaries, Crow, Luria, and Cisneros faced progressive primary opponents and won with the weight of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee behind them. They are now linked up with a PAC working in direct opposition to the interests of the DCCC.



snip


This PAC was started with help from Jeff Bezos (10 million dollars), Howard Schultz, etc etc

they ran an attack advert against Lauren Baer, a Democratic candidate for Florida’s 18th Congressional District and supported the Republican, Mast as well



https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/recips.php?cycle=2018&cmte=C00659011








https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/recips.php?cycle=2020&cmte=C00659011






https://www.opensecrets.org/campaign-expenditures/vendor?year=2020&vendor=Mike%20Garcia%20for%20Congress







https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=C00661272&cycle=2020#topvendors

[ehrnst]

42. The Intercepts cries of "Centrist Dem PAC" are not really accurate, as usual.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190719154511/https://withhonor.org/for-country-caucus

Launched in 2019, the For Country Caucus is an independent member-led House caucus.

The Intercept is as anti-Democratic as they are anti-Republican, but when Bernie doesn't do well, they ramp up the anti-Dem, "OMG those CENTRIST CORPORATIST DEMS" headlines.

[Celerity]

43. non sequitur, you misstated what was posted, it says a Centrist PAC WITH Dems,not a Centrist Dem PAC

The PAC is bipartisan.

[ehrnst]

44. "Democrat-backed Centrist PAC"

No, it's an independently led PAC with some Democratic participants, but limited to those who are military veterans.

The For Country Caucus provides a platform for military veterans in Congress to work in a cross-partisan way to create a more productive government. The emphasis of the caucus is on pragmatic, cross-partisan action with an intent to “put the mission first,” by putting our country first and make progress on issues constituents care about.

Is that clearer?

"Democrat-backed" implies that the party is backing it, which is not accurate. Note also the use of the word "Democrat" rather than "Democratic" which is the language that the RW uses when talking about the Democratic party.

But the Intercept isn't about accuracy - it's about stoking anger and suspicion at both parties, but especially against the Democratic party, in years where Bernie pits himself against "Establishment Democrats" and clickbait headlines are just the start.

It's the National Review of left.

[Celerity]

48. I am not buying what you are selling, you are being disingenuous, trying to pettifog and obfuscate

The For Country Caucus linked PAC went after a FRONT LINE (aka in a very vulnerable seat) incumbent Democrat by supporting her opponent, then when she (Katie Hill) resigned, they still went after the new Democratic candidate by still supporting the Rethug Garcia. The caucus is co-chaired by California Democrat Jimmy Panetta, who was first elected in 2016 and is the son of longtime Democratic operative and former Rep. Leon Panetta. The caucus also includes Democratic Reps. Seth Moulton, Mass., Chrissy Houlahan, Pa., Gil Cisneros, Calif., Jason Crow, Colo., Jared Golden, Maine, Conor Lamb, Pa., Elaine Luria, Va., Max Rose, N.Y., and Mikie Sherrill of N.J. They all knew what was going on.

IF it had been an independent progressive PAC going after a front line incumbent Dem, then you would screaming bloody murder, especially if the prog won the primary and then lost a flipped seat in the general to a Rethug.

AOC, to pick out a favourite target of many, never once went out and endorsed after a vulnerable front line incumbent. She did not even support Cori Bush this time (and Lacy Clay is in a massively Blue district). The only 2 incumbents she endorsed the opponents of were the 2 worst Dems in the entire Democratic caucus, Cuellar and Lipinski. who are in completely safe Blue seats. They were also the ONLY 2 Democratic incumbents I approved of primarying, as I never support primarying a vulnerable Democratic Rep or Senator. Colin Peterson is almost as bad as Lipinski and Cuellar, BUT he is a a super ruby Red seat and he is by far the best we can hope for there. I have zero problems with any other Democrats left now, only Cuellar out of the entire Senate and House Democratic Caucuses.

Both Cuellar (who voted almost 70% of the time with Trump and the Rethugs in the last full Congress) and Lipinski are rabidly anti choice forced birthers, rabidly anti LGBTQ, Cuellar campaigned for and fundraised for a racist climate change denier Rethug John Carter against MJ Hegar (now she is running against Cornyn for Senate), Cuellar is A - rated by the NRA, and is the biggest Dem recipient in the House of private prison money and petrol industry money. Cuellar also voted against the Dream Act and was the only Dem to vote against other immigration bills. Lipinski refused to endorse Obama, voted against the ACA, and viciously and falsely smeared Marie Newman in 2018 with a series of dirty tricks, including calling her a Holocaust denier and anti-Catholic.

Both their opponents had wide-ranging support, including the very powerful and beloved by almost all EMILY's List, and other big Democratic backing groups. Lipinski went down (his district has went Republican ONCE in the last 60 plus years, in the 1972 McGovern wipeout, and flipped back in 1974, Cuellars has NEVER been held by a Rethug.), Cuellar did not, as his opponent was weak. I hope we run a decent centre-left/centrist candidate next time, one who actually believes in and votes for our Party's platform, which Cuellar certainly does not a shedload of the time.

I repeat for emphasis, if an active progressive Dem Caucus PAC or an indy progressive PAC associated with Dems started campaigning against vulnerable Democratic incumbents, the outrage wurlitzers would still be blaring a tune of hate. Hell, I would join in!

Even the bipartisan centre left to centre right (and actually worse ideologically IMHO than For Honor, which I have had zero other issues with besides this stunt, which helped us lose a damn flipped seat, even if their's was a smaller role) Problem Solvers Caucus PAC No Labels (which is truly RW-backed to a large, large extent) has not went after vulnerable front-line Democratic incumbents, although some of the Problem solvers Caucus (some of their Democratic members) did attack Pelosi in her Speaker campaign multiple times (btw, AOC did endorse and vote for Pelosi, and now has endorsed Biden, and is on his Campaign Environmental Committee)

as for this

Note also the use of the word "Democrat" rather than "Democratic" which is the language that the RW uses when talking about the Democratic party.

I am calling it tosh, on two counts

1. A person who is member of the Democratic Party is called a DEMOCRAT, not 'a Democratic'

AND

2. I never have seen anyone who is centre-left or centrist favouring ever have a go at the biggest centrist Democratic Caucus (over 100 members now) for calling themselves

The New Democrat Coalition (when The New DEMOCRATIC Coalition certainly would be grammatically acceptable, and would adhere to the standard 'Democrat is a Rethug slur' stance)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition

The New Democrat Coalition is a Congressional Member Organization within the United States Congress made up of centrist Democrats who support an agenda that the organization describes as "pro-economic growth," "pro-innovation," and "fiscally responsible." Entering the 116th United States Congress, the New Democrats had 103 members, making them the largest caucus in the Democratic Party and the second largest overall (after the Republican Study Committee.)

But hey, they are centre-left and centrist (even a conservative, the above-mentioned Cuellar, who certainly is that), so, just like this event (CA-25), no harm no foul, eh?

Except in CA-25, there was a foul, and there was harm, as we lost the seat to the With Honor PAC-endorsed and funded Rethug.

[ehrnst]

49. That's a using lot of words to avoid talking about what's wrong with calling them

"Democrat-backed."

[Celerity]

51. Both the Caucus and the PAC are bi-partisan, meaning it is both Republican backed and has Republican

Congressional members, as well as being Democrat (as in the syntax 'a Democrat' and 'multiple Democrats') backed and having Democratic Congressional members. I am sure the PAC has a shedload of indies as well.

Also, the very first sentence of the article states

THE POLITICAL ACTION committee affiliated with a bipartisan caucus on Capitol Hill is spending money to back a Republican challenge to Rep. Katie Hill of California,......

Donors (to show Democrats backing it)

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cmte=C00661272&cycle=2018


















2020


2018





Finally, I am quite capable of exercising discernment when it comes to media outlets.

You employed classic attack the messenger games because on the facts the article above was correct, as thoroughly documented now, and now also with a truly shit outcome (we lost a flipped seat) for its ending.

The Intercept put out one of the best debunking articles that should the Ukraines tosh levied against Biden was totally bullshit.

The Intercept comes to Joe Biden's defense in l'affair Rudy in Ukraine.

Link to tweet

A Republican Conspiracy Theory About a Biden-in-Ukraine Scandal Has Gone Mainstream. But It Is Not True.

https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10/rumors-joe-biden-scandal-ukraine-absolute-nonsense-reformer-says/

VIRAL RUMORS that Joe Biden abused his power as vice president to protect his son’s business interests in Ukraine in 2016, which spread last week from the pro-Trump media ecosystem to The New York Times, are “absolute nonsense,” according to Ukraine’s leading anti-corruption activist. That evaluation is backed by foreign correspondents in Kiev and a former official with knowledge of Biden’s outreach to Ukraine after President Viktor Yanukovych was deposed in a popular uprising in 2014.

In an interview with The Intercept, Daria Kaleniuk, an American-educated lawyer who founded Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, expressed frustration that two recent front page stories in The New York Times, on how the conspiracy theory is being used to attack Biden, failed to properly debunk the false accusation. According to Kaleniuk, and a former anti-corruption prosecutor, there is simply no truth to the rumor now spreading like wildfire across the internet.

The accusation is that Biden blackmailed Ukraine’s new leaders into firing the country’s chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to derail an investigation he was leading into a Ukrainian gas company that the vice president’s son, Hunter, was paid to advise.

The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Biden’s urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.

snip

they tear into the NYT's and its reporter Ken Vogel for spreading bullshit too

[ehrnst]

52. So yes, the headline is clickbait for those who want to be upset with Democrats, and feel that

"Centrist" is perjorative. Because no, the caucus isn't "Democrat-backed" in the sense that the Democratic Party, let alone the leadership is 'backing" this independent group of reps who are veterans.

Sort of like calling Biden a "GOP-backed" candidate because the Lincoln Project is Republicans...

Got it.

[Celerity]

53. Only people not interested in having as big as party as possible think that either centrist or

progressive are a priori pejorative. Both types play their own versions of purity tests.

I am a very much a pragmatist, and refuse to get caught up in that internecine sniping. That is why I already said I will be amongst the first in line to condemn any so-called progressive action to primary a vulnerable frontline Democrat.

If Cuellar was in a Collin Peterson-style ruby Red district, his name would have never seen the light of day from my typing, unless he was somehow THE swing vote on taking away any of my LGBTQ rights, or some crucial bill on Abortion and reproductive rights.

He is in a totally safe Blue seat, he is the only Democrat left I endorse a 2022 primary challenge of (and notice I did say we need a centre-left, centrist type to challenge him, just one who actually supports our Party's platforms at vastly fundamental points, the ones he is against, and that is where I shall stay in terms of my opinion.) Oh, and ffs NO MORE Dems campaigning and fundraising for Rethugs like Cuellar did in 2018. Manchin doing that for Collins against Gideon in 2020 in a staggeringly CRUCIAL Senate race this November is outfuckingrageous.

If Sanders (who as you are well, well, aware I am no fangirl of in the slightest) had done that, the calls for his disembowelment on here would be legion.

Also, the Lincoln Project backing Biden is in no way comparable to this entire thing. The Lincoln Project Rethugs are considered apostates by the vast majority of the actual Republican Caucus and Trump himself, plus 50 plus million voters. Neither Party considers the bi-partisan members of The For Country Caucus in Congress apostates to their own party at taproot level. The Lincoln Project also is not connected to a Congressional Caucus. Finally, Biden is not running against a vulnerable Dem, so there is simply no comparison to this situation.

Finally, it is not just that the members of For Country are ex-military. They are very much in a centrist slice of the ideological spectrum. None are remotely progressive. Regardless of whether one is a fan of such persuasion makes no difference, but is is simply factually wrong to try and say its just an ex-military thing.



These are The Trump Scores for the 4 Democratic Members who were in the last full Congress

I include Cuellar as a benchmark, as he has the highest Trump Score of all Democrats in Congress







All are on the higher end for Democrats, especially Lamb

Here are their Caucus memberships (besides For Country)

All are in centrist (6 in the bipartisan Problems Solvers Caucus, the most centrist to centre-right (it has 24 Rethugs in it) of all in multiple cases, especially when it came to Pelosi) caucuses besides For Country, none are remotely progressive (again, not making a value judgement, just stating facts)

Almost all voted against Pelosi for Speaker or signed the anti-Pelosi letter, or vocally opposed her, but some ended up voting for her

Only 2 were never against Pelosi (Luria and Houlahan)

If a bunch of Progressives had done that, to the level many on this list did (including some actually voting against her) there would be howls for their heads on platters.


Conor Lamb (PA-17) Problem Solvers , also voted against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker
Seth Moulton (MA-16) New Democrat Coalition, signed the anti Pelosi letter, changed mind
Jimmy Panetta (CA-20) Problem Solvers, signed anti Pelosi letter, changed mind
Salud Carbajal (CA-24) New Democrat Coalition, Problem Solvers, was against Pelosi, changed mind

Here are the other Caucus Memberships for the 7 Democratic Freshman/Freshwomen

Gil Cisneros (CA-39) New Democrat Coalition, supported the anti-Pelosi letter after it was sent, the changed mind
Jason Crow (CO-06) New Democrat Coalition, also voted against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker
Jared Golden (ME-02) Blue Dog Coalition, also voted against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker
Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06) New Democrat Coalition, Problem Solvers
Elaine Luria (VA-02) New Democrat Coalition, Problem Solvers
Max Rose (NY-11) Blue Dog Coalition, New Democrat Coalition, Problem Solvers Caucus, also voted against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker
Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11) Blue Dog Coalition, New Democrat Coalition, also voted against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker

[RussBLib]

41. Trump is going to crow and crow and crow about this one

While remaining silent on all the losses.

Par for Baby Trump.

[budkin]

50. We officially lost... dammit.

Why the fuck did Katie Hill resign??

[question everything]

54. Because she had nude photos

You put compromising photos on line they are bound to be spread.

The former California lawmaker joined the hosts only four months after the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation against her for allegedly having a sexual relationship with a male congressional staffer -- an allegation she again denied to ABC News' Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview Thursday on "Good Morning America."

The alleged relationship would have been in violation of House rules. Following the #MeToo movement, Congress adopted a rule in February 2018 that barred relationships between members and any subordinates.

She has also acknowledged and apologized for having a sexual relationship with a female campaign staffer when she was running for Congress. While having this relationship wasn't against any congressional rules, she told the hosts "it was wrong."

The scandal that further sensationalized Hill's political career came when nude photos of her were leaked on a conservative website without her consent. She told the hosts she didn't even know they were taken.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reflecting-2019-photo-scandal-rep-katie-hill-fully/story?id=69105515